philosophyofthehumanpersonfinal-111217100034-phpapp01.ppt

8/12/2019 philosophyofthehumanpersonfinal-111217100034-phpapp01.ppt

1/199

1

Philosophyof the Human

Person

JOEL C. PORRAS

FACULTYATENEO DE ZAMBOANGA

UNIVERSITY


2/199

2

To philosophize is to wonder about lifeAbout love and loneliness

Birth and death

About Truth, Beauty and Freedom

To philosophize is to explore Life

By asking painful Questions


3/199

3

When Man is confronted with Mystery, or with

Something whose causes are still unknown, he

wonders why.

Such for Socrates, was the beginning of Wisdom.

In the Theaetetus, Socrates says :

Wonder is the feeling of a Philosopher, and

Philosophy begins in Wonder.

( Plato, Theaetetus, 155 B. Benjamin Jewett invol. 7of Great Books, p. 519 )


4/199

4

The Experience of Wonder

This willingness to stand in a relaxed

receptivity before an object involves a

certain reverence, epistemologicalhumility and willingness to appreciate

out of such admiration grows gratitude

and the impulse to celebrate, or possiblyeven to worship.


5/199


6/199

6

Philosophy is for those who are

willing to be disturbed with a

creative disturbancePhilosophy

is for those who still have thecapacity to WONDER.

( Philosophy an introduction to the Art of Wondering by JamesL. Christian, prelude. )


7/199


8/199

8

Phi losophy of man is an overview on the nature,

activities and destiny of man. It attempts to asses

his place in and his relationship to the world.

Through such an overview, an understanding of

what man is and who he is will emerge. In somerespect, Philosophy of man constitutes a

metaphysics of man, for it is a probe of the deepest

causes and meaning of man.

( Reflections on Man by Jesse Mann et. al p.13)


9/199

9

Some Themes of Philosophy of Man:1. Man as Embodied Subjectivity.

2. Man as Being-in-the-World

3. Man as being-with: The interhuman and the

Social

4.

Man as Person and his crowning activity islove which presupposes Justice.


10/199

10

Some Insights from these Themes in our Philosophy

of Education

1. APhilosophy of Education must include

social aims.

2. Our Educational Policies must aim atspecific personal and social values: of

justice, love, honesty.

3. Total development is not just education ofthe mind but also of the heart and we

educate the heart by being exemplars.


11/199

11

What Does it mean to Philosophize?

1.0 We shall not begin with a definition of

Philosophy. Philosophy is easier to do than to

define.

1.1 At this stage, it is safe to say that we associate

philosophy with thinking.

1.2 Crucial element in thinking is insight.

2.0 Insight is seeing with the mind. E.g. insight into ajoke.


12/199

12

2.1 Two things to be considered regarding

insight:a. the insight itself

b. what do I do with insight

2.2 I can analyze the insight., but if I am merelyenjoying the joke, analysis can kill my enjoyment,

but if I am to the joke to others, analysis can

deepen and clarify the original insight and help inthe effective delivery.


13/199

13

3.0 Another example: death of a grandfather at 110

years old. I listen to the story of my

grandfather in his youth, think of myself as full ofhigh spirits, dashing, popular, but

high spirits are not inexhaustible. Insight:

Generations of men start life full of vigor,then wither away and die after they have given

life to their own sons.

3.1 Homer made a metaphor of this insight: As thegenerations of leaves, so the

generations of men.


14/199

14

3.2 Metaphor sharpens the insight and fixes it in the mind.

3.3 Also, one portion of reality casts light on another: bycontemplating the fall and return of leaves, we

understand also the rhythm of the generations of men.

4.0 Another example: number 4 can be analyzed into

2+2=4 or 1+1+1+1=4.

4.1 How did we gain an insight into 4? By counting, e.g.

cars, abstracting the common and prescinding from the

individual characteristics car.


15/199

15

4.2 Abstraction is one of the tools for analysis of insights.

An abstract thought is a concept. An analysis by

abstraction is a conceptual analysis.

4.3 My insight into the generations of men can be analyzedconceptually, but note that conceptual analysis can

desiccate an insight: the throbbing, tumultuous

generations of men become an abstract fund of energy

and high spirits. It is then necessary to return to theoriginal insight.


16/199

16

5.0 Summary:

5.1 Insight is seeing with the mind: only you can do it. I

cannot see it for you but I can help you see it.

5.2 There are many ways of doing with insight. Some insights

are so deep they cannot be exhausted.

5.3 It takes insight to do something with insight, like the

metaphor of Homer.

5.4 Insight brings us to the very heart of reality, and reality isso deep and unfathomable.


17/199

17

Why do we Philosophize?

1.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.1.1 Experience is the life of the self: dynamic inter-relation of self

and the others, be it things, human being, the environment, the

world grasped not objectively but from within.

1.2 Self is the I conscious of itself, present to itself.1.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not I.

2.0 This relatedness of the self to the other is characterized by

tension, disequilibrium, disharmony, incoherence.

3.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.


18/199

18

4.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.

4.1 Experience is the life of the self: dynamic inter-relation of self

and the others, be it things, human being, the environment, the

world grasped not objectively but from within.

4.2 Self is the I conscious of itself, present to itself.

4.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not I.

5.0 This relatedness of the self to the other is characterized by

tension, disequilibrium, disharmony, incoherence.

6.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.


19/199

19

C. Beginnings of Phi losophizing (When

do we begin to Philosophize?)

1.0 Wonder: For Plato, the poet and the Philosopher are alike in that bothbegin from

wonder.

2.0 Doubt can also impel man to ask Philosophical Questions. Descartes

Philosophy started from doubting the existence of everything.Adolescents also doubt their identity.

3.0 Limit Situations are inescapable realities which cannot be change butonly acknowledged e.g. failure, death of a beloved. We may not beable to control them but we can control our response to them throughreflection. They provide opportunities and challenges for us to makelife meaningful. (existentialists)

4.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is to be unsure of ones center ( GabrielMarcel) equivalent to Soren Keirkegaards Angst.


20/199

20

5.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is contrasted withCuriosity. To be curious is to start from a fixedexternal objects ( outside of me) which I have avague idea of. Metaphysical Uneasiness is beyondthe physical (external ) but more of internal.

6.0 Curiosity tends to become metaphysical uneasinessas the object becomes part of me.

7.0 Philosophizing here begins from the inner

restlessness which is linked to the drive of fullness.8.0 Philosophical Questions ultimately can be reducedto question of WHO AM I?


21/199

21

6.1 Philosophical Inquiry is inquiry into the Coherence,

Sense of human life as totality, as a whole,Comprehensive reality and ultimate (final) value. E.g. I

have a terminal case of stomach cancer; I am given

only three months to live, so I ask What is the

meaning of my Life?

7.0 Sens de la Vie: Sens can mean the direction

of a river, the texture of a cloth, the opening of a

door, the meaning of a word. Likewise, my life canhave a direction, texture, opening (possibilities),

meaning.


22/199

22

D. Philosophical Approaches to the

study of Man

1.0 Ancient Greek : Cosmocentric Approach1.1 The Greek were concerned with the Nature and Order of the

Universe.

1.2 Man was part of the cosmos, a microcosm. So like the Universe,

Man is made up of Matter (body) and Form (soul).

1.3 Man must maintain the balance and unity with the cosmos.

2.0 Medieval ( Christian era: St. Augustine, St Thomas

Aquinas ) Theocentric Approach2.1 Man is understood as from the point of view of God, as a creature

of God, made in His image and likeness, and therefore the apex

of His creation.


23/199

23

3.0 Modern ( Descartes, Kant) Anthropocentric Approach

3.1 Man is now understood in his own terms, but basically on reason,

thus rationalistic.

4.0 Contemporary Philosophies arose as a reaction against

Hegel.4.1 One reaction is Marx who criticized Hegels geist, spirit, mind

and brought out his dialectical materialism.

4.2 Another reaction is Soren Kierkegaard who was against thesystem of Hegel and emphasized the individual and his direct

relationship with God. Kierkegaard led the existentialist

movement which became popular after the two world wars.


24/199

24

E. Existentialism

1.0 The father of Existentialism is a DanishPhilosopher Soren Kierkegaard ( 1813-1855 )

1.1 Three events in Kierkegaards life influence hisphilosophy:

a. unhappy childhood, strict upbringing by hisfather

b. break-up with the woman he loved

c. quarrel with a university professor

1.2 These events and his criticism of the rationalisticHegelian system led him to emphsize the individual

and feelings.


25/199

25

1.3 The aim of Kierkegaard is to awaken his people to the

true meaning of Christianity.

1.4 Two ways to achieve his aim: a. the direct

confrontation ( which is risky ) b. indirect: to start fromwhere the people are and lead them to the truth.

1.4.1. example 1: two ways to help a friend who fell in a

ditch.( a ) direct: pull him out from above which he mayrefuse or he may bring you down. ( b ) indirect: to jump

into the ditch with him and lead him up.


26/199

26

1.4.2 example2 : two ways to help a jilted friend: a )

direct: tell him to forget the woman because thereare other women, in which case he may avoid you.

b ) indirect: sympathize and share the hurt with him

and gradually lead him to the realization that its not

the end of the world.

1.5. Kierkegaard chose the indirect way and saw

himself as another Socrates: The indirect way is the

Socratic Method.

1 6 Ki k d t t d f h th l th


27/199

27

1.6. Kierkegaard started from where the people were, the

aesthetic stage, the stage of pleasure, so he wrote his first

aesthetic works.

1.7. The next stage is the ethical stage, the stage of morality

( of good and evil )

with reason as the standard.

1.8 The highest stage is the religious, where the individual

stands in direct

immediate relation ( no intermediary ) with God.

1.8.1 Here, because God is infinite and man is finite, the

individual is alone, in angst, in fear and trembling.


28/199

28

1.8.2 What comes here is faith, the individuals

belief in God, going beyond reason.

1.8.3 The favorite example of Kierkegaard here is

Abraham who was asked by God to sacrifice his

son Isaac (by his wife Sarah) to test his faith. Thecommand was between God and Abraham alone,

cannot be mediated by others (Sarah would not

understand it), and to apply the ethical would bea murder.


29/199

29

2.0 Existentialism is not a philosophical system but amovement, because existentialists are against

systems.

2.1 There are many different existentialist philosophies, but

in general they can be grouped into two camps: Theistic

(those who believe in God) and Atheistic (those who donot believe in God.


30/199

30

Martin Heidegger

(he is in-between the two camps because he refuses to talk about God)

Theistic

Soren Kierkegaard

Karl Jaspers

Gabriel Marcel

Atheistic

Albert Camus

Jean Paul Sartre

Maurice Merleau Ponty


31/199

31

2.2 In spite of their divergence, there are common features

of existentialist philosophies to label them as

existentialist.2.3 First, existentialist emphasize man as an actor in

contrast to man as spectator.

2..3.1 Many existentialists used literature like drama, novel, short

story, to convey this idea.

2.4 Second, existentialists emphasize man as subject, in

contrast to man as object.

2.4.1 Being as Object is not simply being-as-known but known in

a certain way: conceptually, abstractly, scientifically, its

content does not depend on the knower. It is the given, pure

datum, impersonal, all surface, no depth, can be defined,

circumscribed.


32/199

32

2.4.1 Being as Subject is the original center, source of initiative,

inexhaustible. The I which transcends all determinations, unique,

the self, in plenitude, attainable only in the very act by which itaffirms itself.

2.4.2 Man is both Subject and Object, as can be shown in reflexive acts

(e.g I brush myself, I wash myself, I slap myself) where there is theobject-me(changing and divisible) and the subject-I (permanent and

indivisible).

2.4.3 The existentialists, however, while not denying the reality of manas object, emphasize the Subjectivity of man, of man as unique,

irreducible, irreplaceable, unrepeatable being. E.g. as a passenger in a

crowded bus, I am treated like a baggage, but I am more than that.


33/199

33

2.4.5 The subjective must not be confused with subjectivism or

being subjectivistic.

2.4.6 The subjective merely affirms the importance of man asorigin of meaning (in contrast to the emphasis of ancient &

medieval periods on truth)

e.g. God , not the object proven but God-for-me.

e.g. values both objective and subjective (value-for-

me)

2.5 Thirdly, existentialists stress mans existence, man

as situatedness, which takes on different meaningfor each existentialist.

2.5.1 for Kierkegaard, existence is to be directly related to God in

fear and trembling.


34/199

34

2.5.2 For Heidegger, existence is Dasein, There-being, being

thrown into the world as self-project.2.5.3 For Jaspers, to exist is not only to determine ones own

being horizontally but also vertically, to realize oneself

before God.

2.5.4 For Marcel, esse est co-esse,to exist is to co-exist, to

participate in the life of the other.

2.5.5 For Sartre, to exist is to be free.

2.5.6 For Merleau-Ponty, to exist is to give meaning.

2.5.7 For Camus, to exist is to live in absurdity.


35/199

35

2.6 Fourthly, existentialists stress on freedom which means

differently for each existentialist.

2.6.1 For Kierkegaard, to be free is to move from

aesthetic stage to ethical to religious.

2.6.2 For Heidegger, to be free is to transcend oneself intime.

2.6.3 For Sartre, to be free is to be absolutely determine

of oneself without God.

2.6.4 For Marcel, to be free is to say yes to Being, to

pass from having to being in love.


36/199

36

2.7 Fifth, Existentialists propagate authentic existence

versus inauthentic existence.

2.7.1 Inauthentic existence is living the impersonal they in the

crowd, in bad faith (half conscious, unreflective)e.g.

Detrangerof Camus, functionalized man of Marcel,

monologue of Buber.

2.7.2 Authentic existence is free, personal commitment to a

project, cause, truth, value. To live authentically is to be

response-able.

2.8 All existentialists make use of the

PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD which does not

explain deductively or inductively but simply describes

the experience of man as he actually lives it.


37/199

37

I. PHENOMENOLOGY

1. Traditional study of philosophy begins with logic,then metaphysics, then cosmology and ends with

philosophical psychology or philosophical

anthropology (philosophy of man)1.1 Man defined by traditional scholastic philosophy asrational animal, a composite of body of soul.

1.1.1 Under the aspect of body, man is like any other animal, a

substance, mortal, limited by time and space.1.1.2 Under the aspect of soul, man is rational, free, immortal.

1.1.3 The soul is deduced from the behavior of man to think and

decide.


38/199

38

2. Our critique of the traditional definition of man is that (a) itis dualistic; ( b) it looks at man more as an object, ananimal; (c) it proceeds from external to internal.

3. The phenomenological approach, on the other hand, is: (a)holistic;

(b) It describes man from what is properly human; (c)

proceeds from internal toexternal.

4. Phenomenology was started by Edmund Husserl(1859-1938) whose aim was to arrive at philosophy as a rigorous

science4.1 By philosophy as a rigorous science Husserl meant

presuppositionless philosophy, a philosophy with theleast number of presuppositions.


39/199

39

4.2.1 Unlike Descartes, Husserl was dissatisfied with the

sciences of his time because they start with a complex

presuppositions.4.3.2 In particular, he was reacting against the naturalistic

psychology which treats mental activity as causally

conditioned by events of nature, in terms of S-R relationship

(stimulus-reaction). Presupposition here is that man is amechanistic animal.

5. So, Husserl wanted philosophy to be science of ultimate

grounds where the presuppositions are so basic and

primary that they cannot be reduced further.

6. How does one arrive at Philosophy? By transcending the

natural attitude.


40/199

40

6.1 The natural attitude is the scientific attitude which was

predominant in Husserls time and carried to the

extreme to become scientistic.

6.2 The scientific attitude observes things, expresses their

workings in singular judgments, then by induction and

deduction, arrives at concrete result.

7. But this attitude contains a lot of assumptions:7.1 It assumes that there is no need to ask how we know.

7.2 It assumes that the world (object) is out there, existing and

explainable in objective laws, while man the subject ispure consciousness, clear to itself able to know the world

as it is.

7.3 It takes for granted the world-totality.


41/199

41

8. In short, the natural attitude looks at reality as

things, a fact world.8.1The way of knowing in the natural attitude is

fragmented, partial, fixed, clear, precise,

manipulative, and there is no room for mystery. Itwas moving away from the heart of reality.

9. So, the motto for Husserl and the Phenomenologists

was back to things themselves !9.1 By back to things Themselves Husserl meant

the entire field of original experience.


42/199

42

9.2 The ultimate root of philosophy was not to

be found in a concept, nor in a principle, not in

Cogito.

9.3 Phenomenology attempts to go back to thephenomenon, to that which presents itself to

man, to see things as they really are,

independent of any prejudice. Thusphenomenology is the Logos of the

Phenomenon.


43/199

IMPORT NT STEPS

IN THE

PHENOMENOLOGIC LMETHOD

43


44/199


45/199

EIDETIC REDUCTION

Eidetic Reductionis one of the important reductionsin the phenomenological method.

Reductionis another mathematical term to refer tothe procedure by which we are placed in thetranscendental sphere the sphere in which we cansee things as they really are,independent of any

prejudice.

Eidetic is derived from eidos which meansessence. In eidetic reduction I reduce the experience

to its essence.45


46/199

EIDETIC REDUCTION

I arrive at the essence of the experience by

starting out with an individual example, then

finding out what changes can be made without

ceasing to be what it is. That which I cannotchange without making the object cease to be

the thing it is, is the invariant, the eidosof the

experience

46


47/199

EIDETIC REDUCTION

For example, I am doing a phenomenology of

Love. I start bracketing my biases on love.

Then I reduce the object love to the

phenomenon of love. In eidetic reduction, Ibegin with an example of a relationship of love

between two people. I change their age, race,

social status and all these do not matter in love.What is it that I cannot change? Perhaps, the

unconditional giving of self to the other as he

is. This then forms part of the essence of Love.47

Ph l i l


48/199

PhenomenologicalTranscendentalReduction

Phenomenological Transcendental Reductionreduces the experience further to the very activity ofmy consciousness, to my loving, myseeing, myhearing..etc.

Here I now become conscious of the subject, the Iwho must decide on the validity of the object.

I now become aware of the subjective aspects of theobject when I inquire into the beliefs, feelings, desireswhich shape the experience.

The object is seen in relation to the subject and thesubject in relation to the object.

48

Ph l i l


49/199

Phenomenological

Transcendental Reduction

In our example of love, maybe I see the

essence of love as giving of oneself to the

other because of my perspective as a lover. If

I take the perspective of the beloved, maybethe essence is more receiving than giving. If I

take the perspective of a religious, maybe love

is seen as activity of God.

49


50/199

It is the Phenomenological

Transcendental Reduction thatEdmund Husserl came up with

the main insight ofPhenomenology:

Intentionality of

consciousness

50

I t ti l i t f i


51/199

I ntentionality of consciousnessmeansthat consciousness is intentional, that

consciousness is always consciousness ofsomething other than consciousnessitself.There is no object without a subject, andno subject without an object. Thesubject-of-the-object is called noesis; theobject-for-the-subject is called noema.

There is no world without man, and noman without a world.

51


52/199

GabrielMarcel uses aPhenomenological Method less

technical than Husserl. He calls it

Secondary Reflection

52


53/199

Primary Reflection

The kind of reflection in which I place myself

outside the thing I am inquiring on. An

ob-jectum (thrown infront). It has nothingtop do with my self nor I have anything to do

with it.

53


54/199

Secondary Reflection

The kind of reflection in which I recognize that

I am part of the thing I am investigating , and

therefore , my discussion is sub-jective

(thrown beneath). I have something to dowith it and It has something to do with me.

Because I participate in the thing, I cannot tear

it apart into a clear and fixed ideas; I have todescribe and bring to light its unique

wholeness in my concrete experience.

54


55/199

Human Nature

1. Man as Intermediarya. as being in the world

b. as being at the world

2. Man as Intersubjectivity

a. as being through others

b. as being with others

c. as being for others

3. Man as a Self Project

4. Man as being unto death

5. Man as being unto God55

Three Basic Orientation of Ones


56/199

Three Basic Orientation of Ones

Existence

1. World

2. Others

3. God

I exist as SentioErgo Sum ( I feel

therefore I am) is the indubitable touchtone

of ones existence, it must be taken as

indissoluble unity: the Icannot be separated

from the exist,pertaining essentially to

sense experience.56


57/199

Marcel invokes an image, that of a child

coming up to him with shining eyes, saying:

Here I am! What a Luck!. The statement of

the child cannot be separated from its act of

existing. This is in the word exist or

existere which in Latin means to standout, or to manifest. The indubitable

touchtone of ones existence is linked to kind

of exclamatory awareness of oneself, as in theexpression of the child ( the leaps , the

cries..etc.

57


58/199


59/199


60/199

Example#1: Who am I?


61/199

Example#1:Who am I?Primary Ref lection:I am so and so,born on thisday, in such a place, with height andweightetc.. items on the I.D. card.Secondary Ref lection:I am more than the itemsabove.. I enter into my inner core.

Example#2: My Body

Primary Ref lection: a body is like other bodies..,detached from the I , the body examined by adoctor, studied by medical students, or the bodysold by the prostitute.Secondary Ref lection: I am my body, I feel the

pain when my dentist pulls my tooth.I feel a terrible feeling when I sell my body(prostitute).

61


62/199

SUMMARY

Phenomenologyas a Method is a method inwhich the relation between the investigator andthe investigated object is considered to belongessentially to the object itself.

In cases where the object of investigation isHuman Being, phenomenology becomes the

Method in which all relevant items of researchare exclusively considered only with regard tothe totality of Human Being.

62

MAN AS LIBERTY ( FREEDOM)


63/199

63

MAN AS LIBERTY ( FREEDOM)

I. Two extreme positions on the issue on

Human Freedom: B.F. Skinner: Man is Absolutely

determined.

Jean Paul Sartre: Man is Absolutely Free.

II. Middle position: Phenomenology of

Freedom of Maurice Merleou-Ponty/Abraham Maslow

III. Freedom and Person: Gabriel Marcel.


64/199

64

Two Types of Freedom: Pier Fransen;

Jose A. Cruz S.J.

Freedom of Choice

Fundamental Options Freedom and Responsibility:

Robert Johann S.J. Freedomand Justice

B F SKINNER MAN IS


65/199

65

B.F. SKINNER: MAN IS

ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED

We begin our Phenomenology description ofFreedom by using EPOCHE, bracketing two extreme

positions on freedom: Absolute Determinism andabsolute Freedom.

The behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner holds thatman is absolutely determined.

1. Mans behavior is shaped and determined (caused)by external forces and stimuli:

a. Genetic, biological and physical structure.

b. Environmental structures: culture, national andecclesiastical ( Church )

c. External forces and demands

Our behavior being conditioned by these factors is


66/199

66

Our behavior, being conditioned by these factors, ismanipulable: man can be programmed like machine.e.g. governmental, educational and propagandistic

techniques.

Against Skinner, we hold that there other levels ofexperience which cannot be explained by or reduced

to external factors and stimuli, such as: 1. I can make myself aware of my biological and

physical limitations,

2. I can question my own environmental structures,revolt or validate them.

3. I can achieve a distance from external demandsand forces: hesitate, reflect, deliberate and challengethem.

There are difficulties with Absolute


67/199

67

There are difficulties with Absolute

Determinism:

1. Explaining away self-questioning and self-reflection is doing self- questioning and self-reflection.

2. Not all causal motives are necessitating causesbecause the goods that we face and

the motives we use are limited, conditionedand mixed.

3. If the feeling of freedom is rejected, then nobasic human experience is trustworthy, whichwould lead to total skepticism and inaction.


68/199

68

4. If the statement man is absolutely

determined is true, then the statement isalso determined, and the opposite man is

absolutely free would also be

determined, and so, there would be notruth value anymore to the statement.

5. If Human Beings are manipulable like

machines, there would be no problem inmaking the society just.

JEAN PAUL SARTRE:


69/199

69

JEAN PAUL SARTRE:

ABSOLUTE FREEDOM

Jean Paul Sartre, in His early stage, holds

that man is absolutely Free.

In His essay Existentialism is Humanism,

Sartre discusses his position by stating that

with man, Existence precedes essence ( He

develops absolute freedom in metaphysical

terms in his book Being and Nothingness)


70/199


71/199

71

Man cannot be free in some things only

and not free in others; he is absolutelyfree or not at all.

1. Objection: to Sartre: How can you say

I am absolutely free when I am not free tobe born in such in such a place, parents, ,

day.etc.

2. Answer of Sartre: You can Always live

as if you were not born in such and such a

place, parents, day.etc.


72/199

72

2. Objection to Sartre: How can you say

I am absolutely free when I cannot climba big rock or pass through it? So I amlimited.

2. Answer of Sartre: The rock is theobstacle to your freedom only because

you freely want to climb or pass throughit.


73/199

73

For Sartre: Freedom is a negation, a

negating power of consciousness.

In interpersonal relationship, this means

reducing the other person to an object,

described as: SARTREAN STARE. The other person, because he is also free,

also reduces me to an object. So for

Sartre: HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE (from the Play NO EXIT )

Structured Freedom


74/199

Abraham Maslow

If man is free, his freedom involves both

realms: historicity/given structure and

transcendence in free questioning

Freedom and structures are complementariesthan contradictories

Structure is fundamental to all human growth,

evolution and process

Structures are the offerings of the human

world to which I come:

historicity,environment, etc.74


75/199

Continue.

Structure is also the internal constitution of

being a man with human potentialities: basis

for my being a questioning self.

My own freely created life project is also astructure, that is the structure of being a man

Freedom is operative on all levels: operative

not as a force against structure but as a forceemerging from structure and merging with

structure inorder to further actualize human

potentials75


76/199

Continue

Man, therefore is neither absolutely free nor

absolutely determined

Man is freedom within structure

Final words on freedom

The problem is not proving the freedom of the

will but rather it is in accepting its true

meaning and consequences

76


77/199

Continue

In the exercise of freedom, we are definitely a

and ultimately alone: As Sartre says we are

condemned to be free.

Only we can possess ourselves: No one elsecan do it for us.

Our choices are irrevocable, since the present

moment is never repeated. We cannot undowhat we have chosen.

We can only summon ourselves to manage

making new choices77


78/199

Continue

I must freely create a life-project which is

myself

I alone am accountable

Freedom is both terrible and beautiful: a two-

edged sword

With freedom, he can make choices but creates

anxiety and uncertainty( terrible)

With freedom he can know himself and be in

control of his destiny(beautiful)78

Continue


79/199

Continue

However his destiny and meaning is other-

oriented, open in his potentialities to know and

love

As a result, mans meaning is not only topossess himself freely

His identity is not fully achieved until, having

possessed himself, he gives himself to theother.

79

MAURICE MERLEAU-PONTY:


80/199

80

SITUATED FREEDOM

Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his last chapter ofthe phenomenology of perception, criticizesSartrean Absolute Freedom and holds themiddle position of structure freedom.

For Merleau-Ponty, if freedom is absolute,always and everywhere present, thenfreedom is impossible and nowhere.

There would be no distinction between

freedom and unfreedom. E.g. The slave inchains is just then as free as the one whorevolts and breaks his chains. We are freewhen we control our situation as well as we

are powerless.


81/199

81

Such freedom as Sartres cannot embody

itself in any form of existence, becauseonce freedom has realized something, we

have to say at once that it lies outside its

so-called embodiments. In such kind of freedom, it is difficult to

speak of choice, because choice implies

value, and seeing values is impossiblefrom the standpoint of a freedom which

transcends all situations.


82/199

82

For Merleau-Ponty, our freedom is

SITUATED FREEDOM.

Freedom is interwoven with a field of

existence. Our choices are not made from

absolute zero, but from this field of

meanings.

Outside myself, there is no limit to myfreedom, but in myself, there are limits.


83/199

83

We have to make distinction between :

1.Explicit Intention: I plan to climb themountain

2. General Intention: Whether I plan to climbthe mountain or not, it appears high to me.

Underneath me is a Natural I, which doesnot give up earthly situation and from which isbased my plans.

In so far as I have hands, feet, body I bearintentions which do not depend on my freedombut which I find myself in.


84/199

84

I find myself in a world of meanings. E.g. I

cannot structure the data of perception inarbitrary fashion, like: habits, tiredness;historical situation.

It is true that I can change habits or I

transcend Facticity, but I can only do so fromthese standpoints.

A good example of situated freedom is a

revolution: it is neither purely determined norcompletely free.

GABRIEL MARCEL: FREEDOM AND


85/199

85

GABRIEL MARCEL: FREEDOM AND

THE PERSON

Gabriel Marcel understands freedom inrelation to PERSON.

The Person is characterized by

DISPONSABILITY, AVAILABILITY, incontrast to the EGO which is closed.

Out in existence as an EGO, having freedomand grow to BEING a Person.

Marcels Philosophy can be systematized interms of HAVING and BEING: having andbeing are two realms of life.

HAVING pertains to things external to me and


86/199

86

HAVING pertains to things, external to me, andtherefore autonomous (independent of me)

1. Things do not commune with me, are not capableof participation, closed and opaque, quantifiable andexhaustible.

2 . The life of Having therefore is a life of

instrumental relationship. 3. Having is the realm of problem. A problem is

something to be solved but apart of me, the subject.

4. Having is also applicable not only to things but

also to ideas, fellowman, faith. I can have my ideas,posses other people, have my religion. Here I treatmy ideas, other people, religion as my possessions,not open for sharing with others.


87/199

87

BEING, on the other hand, pertains to person, open

to others, able to participate, creative, non-

conceptualizable, a plenitude.

1. The life of BEING is the life of communion.

2. The realm of BEING is the realm of MYSTERY.

A mystery is a problem that encroaches on thesubject, that is part of me.

3. BEING is also applicable not only to persons but

also to things (art), ideas, faith. I am my painting; I

am my ideas, I am my faith. Here my art, ideas,

religion are part of me which I can share to others.

FREEDOM f M l b l t th l f


88/199

88

FREEDOM for Marcel belongs to the realm of

BEING, because freedom is not distinct from us,

not a possession. Freedom is a mystery not aproblem.

1. A thing possessed may be used or neglected by

the owner without losing its character, but with

freedom, when I deny, abused or betray it, it losesits character as freedom.

2. Freedom then, as belonging to the realm of

Being, freedom breaks the confines of having toaffirm my being which is essentially openness,

participation, creative belonging with other beings

and with fullness of BEING ITSELF.

M i ift d ith f d ( f d


89/199

89

Man is gifted with freedom ( freedom as

fact ), and that is why he experiences a lack,

but which is really an exigency of BEING.

1. In an answer to this appeal of BEING, man

either fulfills or betray his freedom.

2. To fulfill freedom is to affirm, to be incommunion with others, with BEING.

3. Therefore, freedom as a fact points to

freedom as VALUE. I am free in order tobecome free (freedom as achievement), to

become fully a person.

TWO KINDS OF FREEDOM


90/199

90

TWO KINDS OF FREEDOM

1. FREEDOM OF CHOICE (HorizontalFreedom)

2. FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS (VerticalFreedom)

1.1 Our first and commonly understoodexperience of freedom is the ability to choose,

goods, e.g. I choose to study instead ofwatching a movie, I choose to buy a cheap pairof shoes instead of an expensive one, because Iam supporting my siblings education.


91/199

91

But if we reflect deeper, our choice implies a prioror may lead to a preference of VALUES. When I

choose to study instead of playing, I value learningmore than pleasure. When I choose to buy a cheappair of shoes, I value helping my sister/brother morethan my comfort.

2.1 This Freedom is called FUNDAMENTAL

OPTIONS, because it is our general direction ororientation in life, it reflects our value in life.

2.2 It is called VERTICAL FREEDOM, becausevalues form a hierarchy; some values are higher than

others. 2.3 For the German Phenomenologist Max Scheler,

preferring and realizing Higher Values is LOVE, andpreferring and realizing lower values is hatred oregoism.


92/199

92

In the ultimate analysis, there are Two

Fundamental Options: LOVE and EGOISM.

1. It is LOVE which makes me a PERSON,

which makes me truly FREE.

2. FREEDOM OF CHOICE and

FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS are interrelated:

Our Choices shape our Fundamental Options,

and our Fundamental Options is exercised andconcretized in our particular choices.

FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY


93/199

93

FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

These Two Types of Freedom can be seen inthe corollary of Freedom which is

RESPONSIBILITY. Responsibility is the

other side of Freedom. Just as there are two kinds of Freedom, there

are also two meanings of Responsibility.

1. The First Meaning of Responsibilitycorresponds to the First Type of Freedom,

Free Choice , namely ACCOUNTABILITY.


94/199

94

I am accountable for an action that is free,

whose source is the I, I acted on my own, I

decided on my own. I am free from external

constraints.

Being Responsible, Accountable for myaction, however, does not necessarily make me

a responsible person. Here we encounter a

second meaning of responsibilitycorresponding to the second type of freedom:

RESPONSE-ABILITY.

RESPONSE ABILITY means the ability to give an


95/199

95

RESPONSE-ABILITY means the ability to give anaccount, the ability to justify my action as truly

responsive to the objective demands of the situation. 1. A response that meets the objective demands of the

situation is a response that meets the demand ofJUSTICE.

2. A responsible action then from a RESPONSE-ABLE person requires putting the Other in theforefront in place of myself. I am free from internalconstraints, like egoism and whims (arbitrariness).

3. Greater Freedom then is not just being able to dowhat I want to do but being able to do and wanting todo what the situation objectively (versus subjectively)oblige me to do.

FREEDOM AND JUSTICE


96/199

96

FREEDOM AND JUSTICE

The relation between FREEDOM and JUSTICEcan be seen when we take into consideration the

network of relationships with FELLOW HUMAN

BEINGS and the goods intended by Freedom.

JUSTICE is giving what is due to the other.

When we choose goods (things, money, political

poweretc.), we must consider that they are finite

and exhaustible, and that the other also needs them.

Absolute Love for finite goods leads to corruption,

in the object and in the subject.


97/199

97

If the Human Being is to keep his Freedom, He must

assess the real needs with respect to what is availablearound his world and the equally real needs of his

fellowman.

This requires an objective order of Values, like

balancing measurement, LIBRA.

What is due to the other is all that he needs to

preserve and enhance his dignity as a Human Being.

We are obligated to give to the other what the otherneeds to enhance his Dignity.

His Dignity includes His Being and becoming Free.

But we are obliged to give only what we can give


98/199

98

But we are obliged to give only what we can givewithin the limited matrix of possibilities.

Freedom then conditions Justice, and Justice is a

condition of Freedom. Freedom conditions justice, because giving what is

due to the other means allowing him to use his talentsto fulfill his Humanity, giving him Freedom. So, to

violate the Freedom of the other is to deny himJustice.

Justice is a condition of freedom, because I can onlyuse my Freedom for the promotion of Justice, of whatis due to the Human Being. In the exercise of my

Freedom, I must observe Justice so that the resourcesof fellow Human Beings and the World of nature arenot exhausted and totally lost, otherwise there will beno more goods to choose from.

This relationship of Freedom and Justice is


99/199

99

This relationship of Freedom and Justice isapplicable to society.

In a society, there must be a balance ofFreedom and Justice.

This means that there must be structural order

in society such that higher Values are notsubordinated to lower values.

The social structure must be such thatexchange of economic goods and distribution

of political power is geared towardsenhancement of the Human Being.


100/199

100

The practical norm to follow for that ideal is :

to each according to his needs

( Acts 2:45 ).. from each according to his

means ( Acts 11:29 ).

In case of conflict between Freedom andJustice, the use of Violence must be avoided.

Instead structure for deliberations are needed.

People must be able to participate is Dialogueto settle their differences.

I NTERSUBJECTIVI TY ( MAN


101/199

SU J C (

AND FELLOWMAN) I. DIALOGUE

The noted Jewish Philosopher on dialogue,

Martin Buber, makes a distinction between the

HUMAN and INTERHUMAN.

1.1 The Social is the life of the group of people

bound together by common experiences and

reactions; in short, a group existence.

101

Continue


102/199

Continue

1.2 The Interhuman is the life betweenpersons, the interpersonal, the life of dialogue,

The I-THOU.

1.3 For example, Buber joins a procession forthe sake of a comrade (social ), then suddenly

he sees someone in the caf he had befriended

a day before ( Interhuman ). 1.4. The Interhuman can happen to persons

with opposing views, like a boxer in the

boxing match.102

Continue


103/199

Continue

I-THOU ( dialogue ) is to be distinguishedfrom I-IT ( monologue )

2.1One way of distinguishing dialogue from

monologue is to describe the obstacles todialogue which would be the characteristics of

monologue.

We must note first that our life with otherpersons is in reality never pure dialogue nor

pure monologue but a mixture. It is the

question of which predominates103

Continue


104/199

Continue

3.1 The first obstacle to dialogueisSEEMING, in contrast to BEING.

3.1.1 Seeming proceeds from what one wishes

to seem. I approach the other from what I wantto impress on the other.

3.1.2 The look of seeming is made-up,

artificial. 3.1.3 Being proceeds from what one really is. I

approach the other from what I really am, not

wanting to impress on the other104

Continue


105/199

Continue

3.1.4 The look of Being is spontaneous,without reserve, natural.

3.1.5The Seeming that is an obstacle to

dialogue must be distinguished from theGenuine Seeming of an actor who is playing

a role and of a lad who imitates a heroic

model.

105

Continue


106/199

3.1.6 Seeming that attacks the I-THOU is a

lie in relation to existence, not a lie in relationto particular facts.

3.1.7 For example: Two men , Peter and Paul, whose

lives are dominated by seeming:

Peter as he wants to appear to Paul, Paul as He

wants to appear to Peter,

Peter as he actually appear to Paul, Paul as he

actually appears peter, Peter as He appears to Himself, Paul as He

appears to himself.

Six appearances and two bodily beings!!!106

Continue


107/199

Continue

3.1.8 In I-THOU, persons communicate to eachother as they are, in Truth.

3.1.9 Objection to Buber: Is it not natural for man to

seem. Answer of Buber: No, what is natural for man is

to seek confirmation of his being, a

yes from the other for who he is, but this is

difficult and so he resorts to seeming

because seeming is easier.

3.2 The second obstacle to dialogue is speechifying,

in contrast to personal making present.

107

Continue


108/199

Continue

3.2.1 Speechifying is talking past one another.For Sartre, this is the impassable walls

between partners in conversation. Most

conversations today are really monologues. 3.2.2In dialogue, on the other hand, I

personally make present the other as the very

one he is, I become aware of Him, that he isdifferent from me, unique, maybe even with

opposing views.108

Continue


109/199

Continue 3.2.3 To be aware of a person is different from becoming

aware of a thing or animal. It is to perceive hiswholeness, determined by spirit. It is to perceive his

dynamic center.

3.2.4 In our time, we have the following tendencies that

make dialogue difficult:

Analytical: We break the person into parts.

Reductive: We reduce the richness of a person to a

schema, structure, concept..

Deriving: We derive the person from a formula..

Thus: the Mystery of a Person is Leveled

down.

109

Continue


110/199

Continue

3.3. The third obstacle to dialogue isIMPOSITION, in contrast to UNFOLDING.

3.3.1 Imposition is interaction between

persons, they influence one another. But thereare two basic ways to influence another:

Imposition and Unfolding.

3.3.2 Imposition is dictating my own opinion,attitude, myself on the other.

110

Continue


111/199

Continue

3.3.3 Unfolding, on the other hand, is findingin the other the disposition towards what I

myself recognized as true good and beautiful.

If it is true, good and beautiful, it must also bealive in the other person in his own unique

way. All I have to do in dialogue is to bring

him to see it for himself.

111

Continue


112/199

Continue

3.3.4 A typical example of imposition is thepropagandist. The propagandist is not

concerned with the unique person he wants to

influence but with certain qualities of theperson that he can manipulate and exploit to

win the other to his side. He is concerned

simply with more members, more followers.Political methods are mostly winning power

over the other by depersonalizing him.

112

Continue


113/199

Continue

3.3.5 A Typical example of unfolding is theEducator. The Educator cares for his students

as unique, singular, individual. He sees each as

capable of freely actualizing himself. What isright is established in each as a seed in a

unique personal way. He does not impose.

3.3.6 The educator trust in the efficacy of whatis right. The propagandist does not believe in

the efficacy of his cause, so he must use

special methods like the media. 113

Continue


114/199

Continue

3.3.7 This idea of Buber has influenced aTheologian of Liberation, Paolo Friere, who

wrote the Pedagogy of the oppressed.

According to him there are two ways ofteaching:

banking Method: a teacher deposits

information in his students minds and hewithdraws it during examinations.

114

Continue


115/199

Continue

Dialogical Methods: the teacher teaches bylearning from his students their unique

situation, and from there, he unfolds what is

right. Both the teacher and students areresponsible to what is true, good and beautiful.

To summarize, genuine dialogue is turning to

the partner in all truth.

115

Continue


116/199

Continue

4.1 To turn to the other in all truth also meansimagining the real, accepting the wholeness of

the other, including his real potentialities and

the truth of what he cannot say. 4.2 To confirm the other does not mean

approval. Even if I disagree with him, I can

accept him as my partner in genuine dialogue;I affirm him as a person.

116

Continue


117/199

Continue

4.3 Further, for genuine dialogue to arise,every participant must bring himself to it. He

must be willing to say what is really in his

mind about the subject matter. 4.3.1 This is different from unreserved speech,

where I just talk and talk.

4.4.2 Silence can also be dialogue. Wordssometimes are the source of misunderstanding

(Zen Buddhism)117

LOVE


118/199

LOVE

118

Introductory Note: There are manykinds of Love ( Love of Friendship,

Marital Love..etc.).

Our Phenomenology of Love here is

not a description of a particular kindof Love but of love in general between

persons

We begin our phenomenology of love


119/199

We begin our phenomenology of loveby first using epoche, braketing the

popular notion of Love as a pleasantsensation, as something one fallsinto .

1. According to Erich Fromn in hisbook, The Art of Loving , Love is anart that requires knowledge and effort.2. Erich Fromn cites three reasons forthis wrong popular notion of Love asFalling in Love.

119

3.The first reason is that now a days the


120/199

problem is stressed on being loved rather

than on loving. Note the proliferation ofbooks on how to win friends and influencepeople, how to be attractive.4.The second reason is that nowadays the

problem is focused on the object ratherthan the Faculty. Nowadays people thinkthat to love is easy but finding the rightperson to love or be loved is difficult. So

love is reduced to sales and follow the fadof the times.

120

5.The third reason is


121/199

the confusion betweenthe initial state of

falling-in-love andthe permanent stateof being-in-love.

121

6 The experience of love starts


122/199

6.The experience of love starts

from the experience ofLoneliness

6.1. Loneliness is one of the basic

experience of the human being

because of self awareness.

122

7. Thrown out of the situation which


123/199

was definite and secure into a

situation which is indefinite,uncertain, open, the human beingexperiences separation.8. This experience of separation ispainful and is the source of shame,guilt and anxiety.9. There is then the deep need in

man to overcome loneliness and tofind at-onement.

123

9. Some answers to this problem are


124/199

9. Some answers to this problem arethe following:

A. Orgiastic States: trance induced bydrugs, rituals, sexual orgasm, alcohol

etc. The characteristic of this statesare: violent, intense, involving thetotal personality, but transitoryand periodical. They are addictive

124

B Conformity with groups: joining a


125/199

B. Conformity with groups: joining aparty or organization. Thecharacteristics of these groups arecalm, routine dictated. In our societytoday, we equate equality with

sameness rather than onenesswhere differences are respected

C. Creative Activity: a productive work

which I plan, produce and see theresult, which is difficult nowadays.

125

10 All the above are not


126/199

10. All the above are notinterpersonal.11. Love is the answer of Loneliness,but Love can be immature.12.Immature love is symbiotic union

where the persons lose theirindividuality. The following areimmature forms of Love:

A. Biological: the pregnant motherand the fetus: both live together.

126


127/199

B. Psychic: two bodies are

independent but the sameattachment psychologically.C. Passive: masochism. The

masochist submits himself toanother.D. Active: sadism. The sadist is

dependent on the submissiveness ofthe masochist.

127

13. Loneliness ends when the loving


128/199

gencounter begins, when the person

finds or is found by another.14. The loving encounter is a meeting

of persons.

15. The meeting of persons involvesan I-Thou communication.16. This meeting of persons happenswhen two persons are free to bethemselves yet choose to sharethemselves.

128

18. This meeting of persons is not


129/199

18. This meeting of persons is notsimply a bumping into each other, nor

an exchange of pleasant remarks,although this can be an embodimentsof a deeper meaning.

19. This meeting of persons canhappen in groups of commoncommitments although social groups

can impose roles.

129

20. The loving encounter


130/199

20. The loving encounterpresupposes the appeal of the other

to my subjectivity.21. The appeal of the other isembodied in a word, gesture or

glance.22.The appeal of the other is an

invitation to transcend myself, to

break away from myoccupation with the self.

130


131/199

23. I can ignore the causal remark ofthe other as a sign for the meeting.24. My self-centeredness makes itdifficult for me to understand theothers appeal to me.25. I need more than eyes to see thereality of the other, to see his

goodness and value.

131


132/199

26. I need an attitude that has broken

away from self preoccupation. If I amabsorbed in myself, I will notunderstand the others appeal but will

just excuse myself.27.I must get out of the role I amaccustomed to play in my daily life tounderstand the others appeal.

132


133/199

28. What is the appeal of the other?

It is not the corporeal or spiritualattractive qualities of the other.

29. Qualities can only give rise toenamoredness, a desire to be withthe other, but love is the firm will to

be for the other.

133

30. Once the qualities ceases to be


134/199

attractive, then love ceases.

31. Also, the person is more than hisfacticity.

32. The appeal is not any explicitrequest, because the other may goaway dissatisfied, because my heartwas not in fulfillment of his request.

33. The others appeal is HIMSELF.

134

34. The call of the other is his subjectivity:


135/199

be with me, participate in my subjectivity.

The other person is himself a request.

35. The appeal of the other makes itpossible for me to liberate myself from

myself.

36. The appeal reveals to me an entirelynew dimension of existence: that myself

realization maybe a destiny-for-you. Because of you , I understand themeaninglessness of my egoism.

135

37. What is my reply to the others


136/199

y p yappeal? It is not the outpouring of my

qualities to the other.38. Compatibility of Qualities is notnecessary in love.

39. Neither is my reply the satisfactionof his request or desire.40. Sometimes refusal to grant hisrequest or desire maybe the way ofloving him if granting it will do himharm.

136

41 . My reply of the others appeal is


137/199

MYSELF.

42. As a subject, the other is free togive meaning and new dimension to

his life.

43. His appeal then to me is aninvitation to will his subjectivity, toconsent to his freedom, to accept,support and share it.

137

44. My reply then is willing the othersf lf l h d h


138/199

free self realization, his destiny, his

happiness. It is like saying: I want youbecome what you want to be . I want youto realize your happiness freely.45. This reply is effective.

46. Love is not only saying but doing,since the other person is not adisembodied subject, to love him impliesthat I will his bodily being, that I care for

his body, his world,his total well being.

138

47. Willing the happiness of the other


139/199

47. Willing the happiness of the otherimplies I have an awareness, a

personalknowledge of his destiny.48.1 Love is not only saying but

doing, since the other person is not adisembodied subject, to love himimplies that I will his bodily being, that

I care for his body, his world,his total well being.

139

49. My Love will open possibilities forhim but also close others those that


140/199

him but also close others, those that

will hamper his self realization.50. I can be mistaken in what I thinkwill make other happy or I mayimpose own concept of happiness soLove requires RESPECT for theOTHERNESS of the other.51. This respect the other

necessitates PATIENCE, because therhythm of growth of the other maybedifferent from mine.

140

52. Patience is harmonizing myrhythm with the others like melody or


141/199

rhythm with the other s, like melody or

an orchestra.53. Is love concerned only with theother and not at all myself? No,because in love I am concerned alsowith myself.54. This does not mean to be lovedbut in the sense that in love, I place

the limitless trust in the other, thusdelivering myself to Him.

141

55. This TRUST, this defenselessness,


142/199

is a CALL upon the love of the beloved,

to accept my offer of myself.

56. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is

not to will to draw advantage from theaffection for the other.57. The appeal of the lover to the beloved isnot compelling, dominating or possessing

the other. Love wants the others freedom inthat the other himself choose this safe wayand avoid that dangerous path.

142

58. There is indeed that element ofSACRIFICE in loving the other which is often


143/199

SACRIFICE in loving the other which is often(mis)understood as loss of self.

59. I renounce motive of promoting myself,abandoning my egoism.60. But this does not mean loss of self. Onthe contrary, in loving the other I need tolove myself, and in loving the other I cometo fulfill myself.61. I need to love myself first in loving the

other because in loving I offer myself as aGIFT to the other, so the gift has to bevaluable to me first, otherwise I am giving agarbage to the other.

143

62. This loving myself takes the formf b i l d I l d b th


144/199

of being-loved: I am loved by the

other.63. I come to fulfill myself in lovingthe other because when my gift of self

is accepted, the value is confirmed bythe beloved, and I experience the joyof giving in the process I also receive.64. Thus, there exist in loving the

other the desire to be loved in return.But this desire is never a motive inloving the other.

144

The primary motive in LOVE is the YOU-FOR-WHOM-I-CARE.65 Th i t th h h I t lk


145/199

65. The you is not the he or she I talk

about.66. The you is not just another self. ( notjust a rose among the roses Little Prince)67. The you is discovered by the lover

himself, not with the eyes nor with the mindbut with the heart.(It is only with the heartthat one can see rightly; what is essential isinvisible to the eyes Little Prince.) I love

you because you are beautiful and lovable,and you are beautiful and lovable becauseyou are you.

145

68. Since the you is another subjectivity, Heis free to accept or reject my offer of self


146/199

is free to accept or reject my offer of self.Love is a risk.69. What if the other does not reciprocatemy love?70. The rejection of the beloved can be a

test of how authentic my love is.71. If I persist in loving the other in spite ofthe pain, then my love is truly selfless.72. The experience of rejection can be an

opportunity for me to examine myself, forself-reparation, for emptying myself ,allowing room for development.

146

73. when love is reciprocated, love becomesfruitful, Love becomes creative.


147/199

74. Loving although it presupposes knowing,it is different from knowing.

75. In knowing I let reality be, but in loving

I will the others free self realization, Isomehow make the other be.

76. In any encounter, there is a making

of the other: e.g. the teacher makes thestudent a student; the student makes theteacher a teacher.

147

77. In loving encounter, the making of the

h i li i b l i l


148/199

other is not causalistic because love involves

two freedoms.78. To understand the creativity of love, letus do a phenomenology of being-loved.79. When I am loved, I experience a feeling

of joy and sense of security.80. I feel joy because I am accepted asmyself and a value to the lover. I feel freeto be just myself and what I can become.

81. I feel secure because the otherparticipates in my subjectivitry, I no longerwalk alone in the world.

148

82. So, What is created in love is we.83. Together with the we is also a


149/199

new-worldour world, one world.

My life is monotonous, he said, I hunt

chickens; men hunt me. Al l chickens are just

alike. And , in consequence, I am a li ttle bored.But i f you tame me, it wi l l be as if the sun came

to shine in my li fe. I shall know the sound of a

step that wil l be dif ferent from all others. Othersteps send me hurrying back underneath the

ground149

Yours wil l cal l me, l ike music, out of burrow.


150/199

And then look: you see the grain-f ields down

yonder? I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no useto me. The wheat-f ields have nothing to say to

me. And that is sad. But you have the hair that

is the color of gold. Think how wonderful thatwil l be when you have tamed me! The grain,

which is also golden, wil l bring me back the

thought of you. And I shall love to listen to the

wind in the wheat. The Fox to theLittle Prince

150

84. Again, the creative influence of the lover


151/199

is not causalistic because the beloved must

freely accept the offer of the lover.85. Only when the beloved says yes willthe love becomes fruitful,: e.g. the teacherslove is fruitful only when student accepts

freely the education.86. The we created in love is a union ofpersons and their worlds. Therefore, they donot lose their identities.87. In the union of things, the elements losetheir identities.

151

88. In love, a paradox exists: The I


152/199

becomes more an I and the YOU

becomes more of Himself.89. We can clarify and deepen thisparadox in love by describing the

nature of love as a Gift of Self.90. A gift is something I causeanother to posses which hitherto I

posses myself, a giver.91. The other has no strict right toown the gift.

152


153/199

95. The giving in love is also not of thei h I d i i d f l


154/199

virtuous character. I dot give in order to feel

good.96. Why do I give myself in love? Because Iexpereince a certain bounty, richness, valuein me.

97. I can express this disinterested giving ofself to the other as other in the giving ofsex, material things. But when I do so, thething becomes unique because it hasbecome a concrete but limited embodimentof myself.

154

98. To give myself means to give my


155/199

g y g ywill, my ideas, my feelings, myexperiences to the other--- all that isalive in me.99. Why do I love this particular

other? Because you are lovable, youare lovable because you are you.100. The value of the other is his

being unique self. Therefore, sinceevery person is unique, everyone islovable.

155

101. If I am capable of loving thisti l f h t h i I


156/199

particular person for what he is, I

am also capable of loving theothers for what they are.102. From this nature of Love as

disinterested giving of oneself tothe other as other, we can deriveother essential characteristics oflove.

156

103. Love is Historical because the


157/199

other is a concrete particular personwith history.104. I do not love abstract Humanity,but concrete persons.

105. I do not love ideal persons, nordo I love in order to change orimprove the other. e.g the friends of

Jesus, His Apostles, were not idealpeople.

157


158/199

106. We always associate the personwe love with concrete places, things,events: like songs, e.g. In the Gospel

of St. John, The old St John recountshis first meeting with Jesus and endsthat account with It was about fouroclock in the afternoon(John1:39)

158

When friendship is breaking down, we wantto reconcile, we recall the the things we did


159/199

to reconcile, we recall the the things we didtogether:

You are beautiful, but you are empty, he went on. One could

not die for you. To be sure, an ordinary passer-by would think

that my rose looked just youthe rose that belongs to me. But

in herself alone she is more important than the hundrds of youother roses: because it i s she that I have watered; Because it i s

she that I have sheltered behind the screen; because it is for her

that I have ki l led the caterpil lars(except the two or three that we

saved to become butterf l ies); because it is she that I havelistened to, when she grumbled, or boasted, or even sometimes

when she said nothing. Because she is my rose. The Little

Prince in passing by a garden of roses.159

107. In Love, I do not surrender my


160/199

107. In Love, I do not surrender my

liberty to the other, I do not become aslave to the other. The wifessubmission to her husband is done infreedom in recognition of his positionin the family.108. Rather, in Love two freedomsbecome one and each becomes more

free.

160

109 Th i f l f d i


161/199

109. The union of several freedoms in

love results in a community, which isdifferent from a society. Incommunity, persons are free to be

themselves.110. Persons are Equal in Love

because persons are free.

111. The equality in love is theequality of being, not of having.

161

112 Love is Total because the person


162/199

112. Love is Total because the person

in love is indivisible. I do not say, youare my friend only insofar as you aremy colleague.

113. Love is Eternal because love isnot given only for a limited period oftime.114. Love is Sacred because personsin love are valuable in themselves.

162

MAX SCHELERS PENOMENOLOGY

OF LOVE


163/199

The most important sphere in a humanbeings life is the heart.

The heart is the core and the essence.

The heart is destined to love; the humanperson is destined to love.

Loving is the most fundamental act of thehuman person.

Loving is the primordial act. The human being is first and foremost a

being who loves163

WHAT LOVE IS NOT


164/199

Love is not benevolence. When one loves, it is not necessary

that one seeks the material benefit

of its object. When loving non-persons, for

example, one does not need to be

benevolent to the object of theloving act. E.g. Loving God, nature,art, career.

164

Loving persons, on the other hand,coupled with benevolence implies


165/199

p p

condescension and distance. Benevolence makes an effort

towards the well-being of the other,to realize something in the other.

Love exerts no effort to dosomething in the object loved.

Love is not a fellow feeling Fellow feeling is value blind.

165


166/199

Even if love is not a fellow feeling,one fellow feels for a person when


167/199

one loves that person.

Fellow feeling is founded on love.

Fellow feeling varies in the measure

and depth of love. Love is not the same as feeling

states.

Feeling state change, love endures. Love does not alter.

167

Love is the cause of feeling states,


168/199

g ,not feeling states causing love.

There is no such thing as falling outof love.

One does not love for limited periodsof time.

Love is not the same as preference

and rejection of values (valuesapprehension or judgments)

168

One can feel something of positivevalue without loving the object


169/199

possessing that value e.e. Respectfor a person- respect is directedtowards a value of a person that werespect.

Respect necessitates a valuejudgment which entails a certaindetachment; this absent in love.

Love is not directed towards a valuebut to objects possessing that value.

169

Preference and rejection as value


170/199

apprehension are founded on love.

Love is a movement-higher valuescan flash forth and be preferred.

Love is a primitive and immediatemode of emotional response to thecore of persons and objects.

One does not apprehend a value firstand then love.

170


171/199

Love is not blind.

Misconception because of the


172/199

p

primitiveness of love and theadequacy reasons.

Love has an evidence of its ownwhich is not strictly judged by reason

Scheler says: Love sees somethingother in values, high or low, thanthat which the eye of reason candiscern.

172

The beloved has its own worth. Thebeloved is reason enough for the


173/199

beloved is reason enough for the

lover.

Blaise Paschal says: The heart itselfhas its own reasons which reason

itself does not know. Love is not relative to the polar-

coordinates of myself and the other

Love is not a social disposition likealtruism.

173

One can love oneself genuinely


174/199

One can love oneself genuinely

without falling into egoism but onecannot fellow feel for oneself.

Scheler says: Love does not first

become what it is by virtue of itsexponents, their objects or theirpossible effects and results.

174

THE ESSENCE OF LOVE

L ( d h t d) t t b


175/199

Love (and hatred) as acts cannot be

defined but only exhibited.

Hatred is not the opposite of love,indifference is.

Hatred is a disorder of the heart, amovement to the direction.

Hatred looks for the existence of a

lower valueand to the removal ofvery possibility of a higher value.

175

Love is an act and a movement ofintention


176/199

intention.

From a given value in an object, itshigher value is visualized.

This vision of a higher value is the

essence of love.

Love is not a reaction to a valuealready felt, nor a search for the

value already given in an object orperson.

176

Upon seeing that the value is real in


177/199

the object, one moves in intention

philosophyofthehumanpersonfinal-111217100034-phpapp01.ppt

Documents