Lecture 3 II. Man as Embodied Subject A. The Human Body “My Body” by Eduardo Calasanz 1. Intr Introd oduc ucti tion on:: Who Who am I 1. Philos Philosoph ophy y of Man Man and and Questi Question on of Who Who am I i. Phil Philos osop ophy hy of of Man Man as a syst system emat atic ic and and hol holis isti ticc atte attemp mptt to answ answer er the the que quest stio ion n who who am I question: What is man man in general? - Not just to answer the question: - But deals with man in the concrete, particular - Who asks lots of questions in life - Yet he himself is the question The one who asks the question (the subject) itself becomes the question or is the question. - And the question is: WHO AM I ii. ii.
-
iii. iii.
Ordi Ordina nari rily ly,, we we do do not not both bother er to ask ask thi thiss que quest stio ion n (wh (who o am am I) I) ser serio ious usly ly.. in our everyday life and routine, it is surprising and even foolish to ask this question: Who am I Why? We could cite two possible reasons: 1. We seem seem and assume assume to know know ourse ourselves lves certa certainly inly and and clearl clearly y the answer to this question seems so obvious and certain to us we have ready-made, reliable, habitual and acceptable answers by which we easily dismiss the question, by which we do not allow the question to bother us and to make make us think critically critically and deeply. deeply. 2. We are so busy busy and engross engrossed ed with with so many things things,, that life life will will go on even even if we do not answer this question seriously or we do not question our ready-made answers on the contrary, taking the question seriously or questioning our readymade answers will just distract us from what concerns at the moment.
Limit Limit-Si -Situa tuatio tion n or Exis Existen tentia tiall Break Break forc forces es to take take this this questi question on serio seriousl usly y or to to questi question on our ready-made answers. - when we come to existential break or limit situation - existential break: breaking the regular regular pattern of our life, such that that we cannot go on anymore as we are used to. - Limit-situation: Situation where we experience more intensely our limitation or finitude, which awakens us to the limits of our ordinary experience, views, etc. - E.g.: death, sickness, tragedy, failure, etc. - We cannot go on without self-examination, self-examination, we are brought to confront ourselves, to ask questions about ourselves: - Why is this happening to me? - Where have I gone wrong? - What does this mean to me? - Where does this lead me to? - All these questions of self-examination self-examination lead us to the most fundamental/ultimate question about ourselves: WHO AM I. The one who questions about so many things and about himself becomes the question. - And the fixed, ready-made, obvious, certain answers I have had about the question, my personal assumption, assumption, presupposition presupposition about myself no longer satisfy me. - Then, I begin to be critical, question about them and to search, to look for deeper and serious answer to the question: WHO AM I
2. How do we we answe answerr the the quest question ion:: WHO WHO AM I i. what whatev ever er my answ answer er to this this ques questi tion on ines inesca capa pabl bly y hav havee ref refer eren ence ce to my body body - when somebody asks me who am I, My Answer Reference Man I have a body which is different in shape, functionality and abilities than animals Ilonggo or I was born in a Cebuano particular place, place, grew up in a particular place place Juan dela Cruz Born of my 1
parents
-
Unique person
-
Unique features
of my body
ii. ii.
Thus, if I have to know myself, then I have to look at my body. This means that I recognize that there is an intimate, intrinsic relation or connection between Who I am/Myself and My Body. In effect, I am saying or at least I seem to say: I AM MY BODY.
Yet Yet not not all all my ans answe wers rs to to this this que quest stio ion n poin pointt sole solely ly to to may may body body.. The They y also also ref refer er to to something beyond, other than my body. - When I say “I love you”: - I mean that the one loving you is not simply just this body with its particular features and constitutive elements - But somebody/someone more than this body: Spirit, My Whole Being, My Will - In my imagination, wish, thinking (consciousness), I can transcend my body, I am more than my body. - I can imagine far from where my body is at the moment; I can imagine myself as different from my actual body - My wish always goes beyond the present confines of my body. - In thinking, I grasp something more my body: e.g. concepts, number - Therefore, if I want to know myself, I have to look beyond my body, to something beyond my body. - This means that though there is an intimate relation between myself/who I am and my body, I cannot reduce reduce myself, my identity, my humanity, personhood personhood to my body. I am more than my body - In effect, I am saying that: I HAVE MY BODY. - My body is something that I have, and not the totality of who I am.
3. Classical Classical Problem Problem of Philos Philosophy ophy of Man: Soul-B Soul-Body ody Problem, Problem, Mind-Bo Mind-Body dy Problem Problem - If who I am has reference to my body (I am my body) and is something more than my body (Spirit, Soul), then I am both my body and and more than my my body, I am both body and soul - But if I am both my body and more than my body, - How could this be possible for these two seem to be opposed, contradictory? - How could I be at the same time a body and a soul? - How is the soul related to the body and the body to the soul? 2. Some Some Answers Answers from from the the Histor History y of Philos Philosoph ophy y a. Plat Plato o (430 (430-3 -350 50 B.C. B.C.)) i. Man in his original state was pure soul - pure soul: - soul not related, tied to a body - soul exists and could exist apart from the body. - Soul consists of three parts or faculties: Reason: Intellect and Will Passion: Drives and Emotions Appetite: Sensual Part - Man as pure soul living in a World of Ideas/Spiritual Ideas/Spiritual World was drawn by its appetite downward and was incarnated or imprisoned into the body. ii. Man in the present state sema) - A soul imprisoned in a body ( soma sema) - Soul is the essence of man, what makes a man a man - His body: an unfortunate accident does not belong to his essence serves as a prison: hinders the soul to be what it is, to do what it can and should. - Belongs to the world of the sense, world of things subject to decay, changes; perishable; temporal dependent on the soul which leads, commands and opposes it - Soul must free itself from the imprisonment of the body. b. Aris Aristo totl tle e (304-3 (304-322 22 B.C B.C.) .)
-
man: one substance whose matter is his body and whose form is his hi s soul Substance: etymology: - Greek word:
2
-
-
-
c.
ousia (ο υ σ ι α ) which means something that is solid, abiding hupokeimenon (υ π ο κ η µ ε ν ο ν ) which mean substratum or
subject - Latin word: substantia which means - what stands under underlying reality in which the accidents exist and find their unity subject of the accidents, modifications and attributes being per se: a reality that exists in itself, and not in another or something else much stable than accidents: - accidents may cease but its substance abides - but when substance ceases, its accidents also cease substances (primary substances) are the concrete particular things: - this table, this man, this tree, this stone, etc. Substance consists of matter and form: Matter: that which a thing is made of Form: that which determines a thing to be what it is. No substance which is matter alone or with no matter No substance which is form alone or with no form No matter which is not determined by a form No form which does not determine matter. Man is a substance whose matter is his body and whose form is the soul a body is a human body because it is determined by the rational/human soul; - a human body is not simply a body, it is body determined by a form: rational soul rational soul does not exist apart from the body, independent of the body but as always and necessarily determining a body. Man as single substance is a single subject of existence, of operations and activities. - It is not the soul that knows, nor body that knows; it is man, body and soul that knows. - It is not the soul that feels nor body that feels; it is man, body and soul that feels - It is the soul that grows nor the body that grows; but man, body and soul that grows
St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) - nature of man - man is neither his soul apart nor his body apart but the whole which is composed or a unity of body and soul - but the body and soul are not matter and form of the one substance - rather, body and soul are two substances
-
-
-
-
man is a soul (rational substance) using a body (material substance) - though it may mean literally that man is essentially a soul, Augustine never took the formula too literally - but the formula is a forcible expression of the transcendent superiority of the soul over the body when we define man, the soul must occupy a prominent place in our definition Origin of the Union of the Soul and Body Unlike Origen who taught: - Soul had an existence in heaven anterior to its present existence - But the soul sinned in heaven and were sent down into its body as prison - Soul acquiress a body in proportion to the gravity of sin For Augustine - Origen’s view is repugnant: body a prison, body as punishment - Body: created as intrinsically good, not as a consequence of or punishment for sin - Thus, soul, not sent down to be imprisoned to a body - Rather, soul is united to the body in love, as an ordering, conserving, animating, moving force within - How? Soul is entirely/wholly present in every part, and is present in all parts as a whole. Not present by diffusion or division. Problem of Augustine’s View: How man who is a single substance can result from the union of body and soul, when both of them are two substances? How can an intelligent/spiritual substance be united to a material substance so as to animate it?
3
-
-
Augustine realizes that the question is difficult and that it is not necessary to answer them for we are dealing with a profound mystery as we are dealing with man himself whom one could not understand. Augustine bequeathed these unsettled problems to the Middle Ages and let us see how Thomas Aquinas tried to resolve these problems.
d. St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) - Nature of Man: - Composite/unity of body and soul - But Soul and body are not two substances whose union make the one substance, man (Augustine’s view) - Rather, soul and body are matter and form of the one substance, man (influenced by Aristotle) - Man is a substance constituted by matter which is his body and by form which is his soul - Just as matter and form are constitutive, inseparable elements of any substance, body and soul are constitutive, inseparable elements of a concrete particular man. The soul is the form which makes the body a human body as form determined matter to be a particular substance The body is the matter which the soul determines, which is determined by the soul. There is no man without a body, and just a soul as there is no substance without matter and just a soul There is no man without soul and just a body as there is no substance without form and just matter - Problem of the Created Character and Immortality of the Soul - Soul is created by God so is the body - But unlike the body it is immediately created by God - This implies that the soul is not necessarily tied to the body; the soul is separable from the body - Thus, the hylomorphism of Aristotle could be eliminated. - How? Revolutionize the metaphysics of Aristotle: - Matter and form - Essence and act of existence (esse) e. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Introduction: - what is absolutely certain and indubitable on which all knowledge could be founded and structured? - Descartes’ Answer: Cogito, ergo sum – MY CONSCIOUSNESS AND MY EXISTENCE - What/who is this I, of which I am absolutely certain as existing i.
-
-
-
ii.
-
-
“I” is nothing but pure “thinking” substance: I as Res Cogitan (Thinking Thing) substance: - that whose existence depends on no other (God alone is substance in this sense) - that whose existence depends on no other except God What is the essence of the I as a substance? What kind of a substance is the “I” - The I is a substance whose essence is solely to think, will, imagine, etc. - The essence of the I is consciousness, thinking Why is the essence of the I is thinking or consciousness - Only when I think, that it is evident the I exist - On the other hand, if I cease to think, though bodies still exist, I have no reason to believe that I exist - Thus, there is a necessary connection between I and thinking. I am not my body my body does not belong in any way to the essence of the I - the I is radically distinct, separate, independent of the body - I as pure consciousness does not require any place to exist does not need a material reality on which, with which, for which it exists does not fail to be whatever it is even if the bodies do not exist Why? There is no necessary connection between I and the body - Even if I think, imagine, pretend, presume that I had no body, that there is no world, and that there is no place to be in, I still exist in the fact that I doubt the
4
existence of these things. In fact the more I doubt about these things, the more evident that I exist. I could not doubt that I exist even if I doubt my body. In fact, the more I doubt my body, the more evident that I exist - On the other hand, even if bodies exist, even if my body exists, if I have no consciousness, if I cease to think, I have no reason to believe that I exist. iii.
-
iv.
-
-
My Body as Res Extensa (Extended Thing) is a distinct substance from the I - not only because it is independent, does not need the I, for its existence and operation - its essence is extension; it is like any other material body, like a machine Problem of Communication between the two substances on the level of experience (phenomenological level), Descartes cannot deny the communication, interaction of the I and the body, of the res cogitan and res extensa Problem: - On knowledge: If the mind is totally separate, independent, distinct from the body, how can we know material things? - On Causality: If there is not interaction between the I and the body, how can I move my body, how can my body affect me since I am affected by my body and other bodies? Descartes’ Solution: 1. Image of a captain and his ship: soul is in a body like the captain in a ship 2. Pineal Gland: point of interaction between the I and the Body 3. Distinction: on the superficial, experiential, phenomenological level, we do not doubt the interaction on deeper meditation, we doubt, deny the interaction. -
3. Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) a. Introduction: Reflecting on My Body i.
-
-
ii.
My Body as the Primary Datum of Philosophical Reflection Marcel was a playwright and musician, unlike Descartes who was mathematician and scientist For Descartes, the starting point, the foundation, primary datum of any philosophical reflection is the COGITO ERGO SUM: the indubitable consciousness of the I as a thinking substance. - This is the first principles of Philosophy in the order of knowledge This is the first things which we are certain of On this, we build/construct our systematic knowledge of all things For Marcel, the starting point, foundation of any philosophical reflection, primary datum of any philosophical reflection is MY BODY - The most obvious datum - Starting point and basis of whatever I assert and can assert, including philosophical claim - Nothing is asserted which is not based on this primary datum - E.g.: Exclamatory Self-Awareness of Existence When I exclaim: “I exist, I am manifest” in which the impossibility of doubting my existence is linked, I come within the existential orbit, which is defined by my body which is founded on the primary datum: my body. - I.e.: in relation to what I see, I feel, sense, touch. - In short: I sense, therefore I exist. SENTIO ERGO SUM - Thus for Marcel, there is an intrinsic, essential relationship between my body and existence unlike the view of Descartes In knowing that I exist, I deal with my body where the I/Self is manifested, manifestation of the self in the body, self-manifestation in the body. - Consequently, if I want to know, reflect on who I am, I have to reflect on my body. Two Ways of Reflecting on my experience of my body
1.
Primary Reflection - Nature of primary reflection 5
a kind of reflecting in which I place myself outside, separate from what I am reflecting on. Here, I treat the object of my reflection, the question I am dealing with as a PROBLEM when I reflect on my body on the level of primary reflection, I place or consider my body outside of or apart from myself. - The body becomes simply an object which is thrown in front of me so that I could see clearly (objective, objectification) - I break the fragile link between I and my body that is constituted by the word “I”, “my”. Consequently, my body is no longer seen as my body but a body A body which is apart from me, detached from me - I have nothing to do with it - It has nothing to do with me A body which is one body among other bodies, I speak about, treat my body just like any other bodies - No special privileges whatsoever - No uniqueness: this body is mine alone not like any other bodies - Seen in terms of the common characteristics, features it has with other bodies. - Tools used in Primary Reflection Analysis: break each of the parts Synthesis: study their order, relation with one another Conceptualization: come to some clear and fixed ideas regarding the thing in itself, universal idea of body that applies to all bodies. - This type of reflection on my body (Primary Reflection) is used in the natural sciences: e.g.: Anatomy, Physiology, other sciences - Oftentimes, this is how we simply view our body, my body, especially with the dominating influence of science on modern society. - Though there is a particular value in the primary reflection on the body (e.g.: medicine), yet what is provided by the primary reflection is not the whole truth of my body, does not exhaust the richness of my body. It does not and could not tell me everything I could know about my body It could not account the totality, the richness of the experience, what is given in my experience of my body as my body It could not help me come into a closer understanding of the totality of all that exist, of the inexhaustible richness of a kaleidoscopic world
-
2.
iii.
-
Secondary Reflection - Nature of Secondary Reflection: A kind of reflection in which I do not separate myself from the object of my reflection, what I am reflecting on. I treat the object of reflection as a MYSTERY. When I reflect on my body on the level of secondary reflection, I do not consider myself as apart, separate from my body, or I do not separate myself from my body: - The body is thrown beneath the subject, under or as part of the one reflecting, as part of me (subjective) - I do not break the fragile link between my body and myself constituted by the word “my”, “I” - As consequence of this kind of reflection, my body is viewed not just a body, but my body My body is not something from which I could separate myself; it is not something to which I could indifferent, be radically detached - I have something to do with it - It has something to do with me My body is my body because it is mine alone, unique - Not like any other body, my body is mine alone - Not like any other body, not exactly the same as other bodies. - Tools used in Secondary Reflection Not analysis, synthesis, conceptualization But by describing my concrete experience (its unique whole as it is present in my experience of ) my body, I come to the revelation, unfolding of the total presence, unique whole identity of my body The question raised by secondary reflection on my body is not: “WHAT IS THE RELATION OF THE “I” TO THE BODY?” - Why? 6
We only come to this question when we separate I and the body, view them as 2 distinct, separate entities or realities between which determinable relationship must exist in whatsoever either: - Parallelism - Interactionism - But the body referred to in this question is no longer my body, but an abstract, the body, viewed on the level of primary reflection rather than on the level of secondary reflection Rather: WHAT IS MEANT BY “MY” IN THE CONCRETE EXPERIENCE OF MY BODY? WHAT MAKES THE EXPERIENCE OF MY BODY REALLY AN EXPERIENCE OF “MY” BODY RATHER THAN AN EXPERIENCE OF JUST ANY BODY? - Here I investigate the meaning of the “my” in my experience of my body - I try to investigate whatever the “my” of my experience of my body implies - ‘My body’ implies: I have my body I am my body - To clarify the meaning of “my” in the experience of my body is clarify these two affirmations.
-
-
b. I HAVE MY BODY - the first thing that “my” clearly implies in the experience of my body is: - having, ownership, possession - I have my body, I own my body, I possess my body - In what sense does “I have my body” mean? What does it mean to affirm that “I have my body”? We could clarify this by: - First, describing all our experiences of owning, like owning a dog, owning a pen, etc. - Then, the structure and meaning of owning, having, possessing is unfolded which applies also to my experience of my body as something I own, I possess, I have - There are three essential elements unfolded in the different experiences of owning: CLAIM/RIGHT, RESPONSIBILITY/DUTY, CONTROL. - And let us how these elements also apply to my experience of my body as something that I own, possess, have. i. Claim/Right Any sort of possession implies a CLAIM/RIGHT I have a claim, title, a right to whatever I own. E.g. I have a dog An instinctive feeling that it belongs to me nobody has a right, title to it except I It belongs to me alone; nobody possesses it except I I acquire the right either by: buying, discovery, use, or other means
ii.
My body as something I possess implies that I have a CLAIM, RIGHT to my body I have an indisputable claim, to my body An instinctive feeling that it is mine, that my body is my own Nobody has a right, claim, title to it except I It belongs to me alone; nobody possesses it except I When my body is owned by another in whatever form of slavery, I feel that my right is violated. Yet I still feel that my body is my own. I do not simply acquire this right by: owning, discover, use or other means It is already pregiven right, possession.
Responsibility/Duty Any sort of possession implies RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY
There is certain relationship between me and what I own or possess I respond to it: I assume
-
7
My body as something I possess implies that I have a RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY I have a relationship, responsibility to my body I respond to it I assume the responsibility of taking care
responsibility to take care of it I look after its welfare
iii.
Control Any sort of possession implies CONTROL
What I own
responds to me
It recognizes me. E.g. a dog recognizes me when I call him; otherwise it is not my dog It obeys me and submits to me
-
c.
of it: nourish it, let it rest/sleep, wash it, etc. I have the responsibility to look after its welfare
My body as something I possess implies that I have CONTROL over my body My body responds to me It obeys, submits to me: it does whatever I command to it: sit, walk, run, jump, etc. thus when my body is out of control, it tends to cease to be my body
I AM MY BODY - though the analogy/comparison between having/owning a dog and having a body at first glance seems full and exact such we could say that I have my body, there is limitation in the analogy - the analogy has its specious side: the experience that I have my body is not exactly and fully the same as owning a dog, a pen, a book, etc. i.
Difference in the Unity/Union/Relation between my body and myself, and between other things I own and myself. - between myself and other things I own - there is a sense of union, unity, relation, e.g. between myself and my dog, shirt, etc. when I lose something (e.g., my dog, my pen), I experience some sort of rending as it were the wholeness/integrity of my body is taken or paralyzed, some part of me is taken away. - But the union, unity, relation is not perfect, has some limitation because there is no identity between them No identity of location (spatio-temporal): Where I am is not exactly where the thing I possess is. No identity of history: Its past, present, future are distinct from my past, present and future No identity of being - I exist even before what I own exist or what I own exist before I exist - I am not what I own; what I own is not me - “The tragedy of all having lies in my own desperate efforts to make ourselves one with something which nevertheless is not and cannot be identified with our being.” - Unity between myself and my body is sui generis – of its own kind, unique. - There is identity between I and my body: Location: where I am, there is my body. History: beginning, past, present and future of my existence cannot be separated from the beginning, past, present and future existence of my body. Being: - My body does not exist independent of me nor I exist apart from my body - When my body ceases to be, the structure of my experience does not offer direct means of what I shall still be, what I can still be. - When body dies, I die.
ii.
Difference between how I control my body and how I control other things I own Things I own as Instruments - I have control over the things I own as instruments - Instrument: Extension, reinforcing of body’s power, capacity or part of body Artificial means of extending, developing, reinforcing a pre-existing power which must be possessed by the one who uses the instrument - E.g. of how I control things I own as instruments: Simple instrument/machine:
-
8
Knife: extends, reinforces, the power of my hand Eyeglasses, telescopes, microscope: extend, reinforce the power of our eyes, the power of seeing, the capacity to see. Complex instrument/machine: - Extends, reinforces the power, capacity of my body as a complex unity, capable of organized and complex activity where specific power expresses its unity - E.g. car, computer, My Body: Not an Instrument - If it were, it would need another body whose power, capacity it extends, reinforces or develops. This, in turn, needs another body, so on and so forth. This implies an infinite series or regress of bodies (ad infinitum), making any form of instruments impossible. Thus, we end up with contradiction, absurdity. - Rather, my body: Material reality which does not need any other body whose power it tries to extend, develop, reinforce. Where does the power/capacity of my body originate, come from? Is the source purely spiritual, separated, outside of my body? - I/Subjectivity is the original source, center, subject, and the origin of initiative which in itself is not determined by anything else except itself - I/Subjectivity is not separated from or outside of the body - But there is unity between the I/Subjectivity and my body A unity which is sui generis, unconceptualizable, difficult to conceive in a clear and distinct The unity is of a kind that the I/Subjectivity is identified, immersed, incarnated, present, mediated in my body. - Thus, I am my body - The relation between I and my body Could not be parallelism nor interactionism - Both presuppose: separation, absolute non-identification between I and the Body But NON-INSTRUMENTAL COMMUNION. -
-
-
Summary: Man as Embodied Subject/Spirit 1. I am my body - “I”, my subjectivity is not separated, extrinsic, external to my body - but immersed, incarnated, identified, present, mediated in my body. - There is non-instrumental communion on the level: - Location - History - Being - My body participates, is immersed in my subjectivity: - When my hand grasps, I grasp - When eyes see, I see - When body aches, I am in pain - Denial of this affirmation is: SPIRITUALISM, IDEALISM 2.
I have my body (I am not my body) - “I”/my subjectivity is and cannot be reduced, identified completely with my body - I cannot be reduced just to my body which I other people can see and touch - My body in some extent is something other than myself. - There is certain non-identity: - Denial of this affirmation is: MATERIALISM Thus, Man is a subjectivity who is immersed, incarnated in his body but could not be completely identified with his body because HIS BODY is midway between BEING AND HAVING
4. William Luijpen: My Body as Intermediary we have seen in Marcel’s understanding that Man is an Embodied Spirit. Let us see now the implications of this on man’s relationship with the world and other men by clarifying Luipen’s idea that my idea is an intermediary.
-
Introduction: The Meaning of Intermediary: Distinction between Immediate Relation and Intermediate Relation. i. Immediate Relation - When 2 things are directly related to one another such that there is no third party or reality or other reality which bring about their relationship or interaction, they are in an immediate relation to one another - In this kind of relation, no room for concealment; there is complete, necessary encounter. 9
ii.
-
-
iii.
Intermediate Relation when things are related to one another not directly but through another reality (a third party), they are said to be in an intermediate relation illustration: XYZ - immediate relations between X and Y, Y an Z - intermediate relation between X and Z as they related to one another only through Y that which mediates/bridges the relationship is what we call as intermediary. In our illustration above, y is the intermediary. In this kind of relationship, there is the possibility of encounter and concealment. Thus, there are always two elements of an intermediary relation 1. ENCOUNTER: the intermediary could be the means through which the two parties/realities involved are related, open up to one another (Z to X, X to Z). When this happens there is an encounter. 2. CONCEALMENT: but the intermediary could also be the means through which two parties/realities involved are concealed from one another, hide from one another (X hides from Z through Y, Z hides from X through Y). When this happens, there is concealment.
My body as intermediary between I and other than I (the world and other embodied subjects) - since “I”, my subjectivity is immersed, incarnated in my body but could not be completely identified with my body, my body becomes an intermediary between me and those other than me. - If I were completely identified with my body, my body could not be an intermediary between I and others but with my body I am immediately related to others. There is no concealment between and the others. I completely manifest through my body. - If I were not in any way identified, immersed, incarnated in my body, I could not relate to any one in any way through my body.
a. My Body as Intermediary between Myself and the World i.
-
-
Encounter between Myself and the World through My Body through my body, I am and can be present in the world, am open to the world, affecting and touching the world. - I am located here and now, because of my body; I am located here and now in and through my body - Because of my body, I affect, touch, shape the material things - Through my body, I grasp the world in a particular way, I see, hear, smell the world in a particular way. - Through my body, my world of meaning and values become present in the world. The world becomes my world through my body. through my body, the world can be present and is present to me in a particular way. - The world is present to me through my body. The world affects, touches me - It is present to me in a unique way because of my body: It is hard, soft, colorful, - Not the same world present to a fly or other animals.
ii.
b.
Concealment between Myself and the World through My Body - Through my body, I am concealed from the world - I can withdraw myself from a particular place - I can withdraw my personal presence through my activities through my body. - My body does not complete mediate myself to the world, no matter how sincere I am in my openness to the world around me. - Through my body, the world is concealed from me. - The world is not present and cannot be present to me in a particular way My Body as Intermediary between Myself and other Embodied Subjects (Intersubjectivity) i.
-
Encounter between Myself and other Subjects through my body through my body I become present and open to other subjectivity - I manifest myself to other subjectivity, and thus they come to know me in and through my body My body language, my verbal language (written or spoken) will let them know whether I am happy, what my values and concerns are, what I care, who I am, my world of meaning and values
10
Through my body, I become present in the sense of being there for the other, available for his/her welfare. - I affect other subjectivity through my body. It is through my body that I hurt other people, through my body they are affected by my love and concern Through my body, I influence people whether for good or for bad. The other subjects become present to me in and through my body - I come to perceive, to know others as subjects through my body Through what I see, hear, touch, etc., I come to know who they are, their values, concerns and worries, their world of meaning. - They become present to me through my body - They affect me in and through my body
-
-
ii.
-
-
Concealment between Myself and other Subjects through my body I conceal myself from the other subjectivity in and through my body. - Because I am an embodied subject, I am not fully present to others in and through my body no matter how I try and wish to be fully present Through my body, there is something that others do not know; through my body I could not let other know fully who I am. My personal presence to others could not be fully mediated through my body. I am only present there in certain extent. I only affect others in limited way through my body. Through my body, I can deliberately conceal myself. I could make my body as mask Others are concealed to me in and through my body - The others are not fully revealed to me, manifest to me - They would not become totally present to me. They are only present in certain extent - They do not affect in a determine and totalizing way.
Summary: WHO AM I? I am an embodied subject: I am my body and I have my body As embodies subject, my body is the intermediary between myself and World and other subjectivity. - I encounter the world and others through my body; and the world and others encounter me through my body - At the same, I am concealed from the world and others through my body; and the world and other are concealed to me through my body. B. Temporality-Historicity of the Human Person Man and His Historical Action by Rainer Reyes
-
1.
Temporality of the Human Person: Human Person as Constituted by His Past, Present and Future a.
Man’s Presence as a Now Presence - Man as embodied subject is present in the world and the world is present in him - Man (as present in the world through his body as the intermediary) is present in the world AT A PARTICULAR TIME AND PLACE (spatio-temporal presence) - And he is present in the world NOW, AT THIS PLACE. - The presence of man is a here and now presence: secular presence, secularity of man - But his presence here and now, his present moment is not separated from the past and future - Now-presence is not a now-presence which is: - not intrinsically related to the past and the future - without the past, and future - man’s nowness is not the nowness of eternity which has no past and future. THE ETERNAL NOW OF GOD - Rather, man’s nowness/presence is a TEMPORAL NOW because it is related to the past and future.
b. Man’s Present/Now as the Presence of the Past in the Now Presence - Past: - Refers to something that happened before, to what was before, as distinct from the: - Present: what is at present, what is happening at the moment - Future: what will be, what will happen - But the past does not stay in the past; it is not cut loosed from the present - Rather, they are retained in the present - Retension: 11
Now presence of a former presence In every now, in every present presence of man, there is a retention, a now presence of a past presence How? In so far as the past determines, shapes the present reality, the past is not isolated from the present, not left behind or buried in the past but it is present in the present This means that the present reality of man is always determined by the reality of the past.
-
c.
Man’s Present/Now as the Presence of the Future in the Now Presence - Future: - Something that will still happen or is still to come or to be realized - Unfinished, to be realized project; the not yet. - Not pure determination, not yet fully determined or realized. - The future is not something isolated, separated, cut loosed from the present, but the future is present in, intrinsically related to the now - How? - The now, present contains within itself the possibilities of the future: - The now/present is not yet fully realized, determined, complete There is still in present that is still to be realized and can still be realized In short, there is an unfinished project - Yet what is to be realized is already contained in the present, not as something actual,, but as a possibility of the present. There is a future because it is already a possibility of the present There is no future if it is not a possibility of the present -
Summary:
-
Temporality: - is the intersection of the past and future in the now/present - here and now presence is where the past and future intersect, meet, converge - the point of intersection, the cross section where the lines of event in the past, present and future converge - the inseparability of the past, present and future no present without a past and a future no future without a present and a past no past without a present and a future
2. Historicity of Man
-
Man, like other things in this world is a temporal reality He is present here and now; his presence is a here and now presence And his here and now presence is determined by the past and contains within itself the possibilities of what he will be and can be in the future Thus, there is the intersection of the past, present and future in man, like other things. As a cross section of the past, present and future, his past, present and future are inseparable like all other material things. What distinguishes man from other temporal beings? Unlike other temporal beings, he alone is a historical being. He is a historical being because of his consciousness and freedom/subjectivity. Thus, he is unlike any other temporal beings for he has consciousness and freedom with regard to his temporality.
a. Consciousness - Unlike other material things, man has consciousness, and more precisely, has selfconsciousness - Consequently, unlike other temporal realities, he is not simply a cross section of the lines of events of the past, present, and future, - but he is a CONSCIOUS CROSS SECTION of the lines of events in the past, present and future. He is conscious of how the past, present and future events and realities intersect, meet or are synthesized in him and in others. - He is conscious of who he is, what he is right now; what he is doing, his dynamics here and now. He is also conscious of the present realities and dynamics of other things. - He is conscious of the different events and realities of the past which determine or affect who he is right now and his present dynamics and activities. He is conscious of the different past realities and events that determine the present realities and dynamism of other realities. - He is conscious of the future: of things that are still to be realized in him, of his different possibilities contained in his present reality and dynamism. He is conscious of the future
12
of other things, of the different possibilities contained in the present reality and dynamism of other things.
b. Freedom/Subjectivity - subjectivity: - original source/center of action, of determination, of initiative - this source/origin, unlike any other, is transcending (which goes beyond) transcends any determination, control, manipulation; it could not be determined by anything else except itself transcends all the qualities, functions, and possibilities and stamps all these with recognizable sign of uniqueness, and unity transcends any form of knowledge. a mystery: inexhaustible aspect of the person. - Because of his subjectivity, man has certain power/capacity to be creative and responsible (FREEDOM) to his past, present and future - He can freely determine how his past and future intersect, interpenetrate in the present, in the here and now. And they intersect in a unique way. - Unlike other things, he is not simply determined by external forces and realities; his past, present and future do not intersect simply because of the determination of external forces and realities. - Let us how he could be unique, creative and responsible in making his past and future intersect in his present - PAST: - He could grow in his consciousness of the past - He could attach new meaning and values to it - He could accept or reject his past - In this way, the past does not determine him as before or it determines him in a new way. They determine him in a unique way - FUTURE: - He can be creative in his consciousness of his future possibilities - He has the capacity to realize himself, his possibilities, his future contained in the present and his future, his possibilities are not simple to be realized by external forces - He is the source of determination where from now on the lines of events will come together in him and in other in a unique way - He takes the responsibility in realizing his possibilities, and in determining how the lines of even will come together in him. - Man, unlike other temporal things, his process of determination by the past and of the future is not purely evolutionary (i.e. by external, random forces) Summary: - human person is a historical being because he is conscious, unique and responsible crosssection of past, present and future events: - synthesis/cross-section of past, present and future events - conscious of the this synthesis, cross-section: conscious of the determination of the past in the present conscious of the possibilities of the future contained in the present - unique, responsible and creative cross-section responsible and creative in his consciousness of the past and future responsible and creative in how the past determines the preset responsible and creative in how to realized the future. 3.
Different Dimensions of Man’s Temporality-Historicity
- man: conscious, unique and creative/responsible intersection, synthesis of the past, present and future events and realities. - And events and realities are of different levels, kinds or lines: - Physical - Interpersonal - Social - Historical - Personal - The past, present, and future of all these realities and events meet, intersect in man - Man is where all the boundaries meet. (Dostoyevsky) - Thus, man has different dimensions, is multi-dimensional. Consequently, we could understand the historicity of man by taking into account of how man is a conscious, creative and responsible intersection of past, present and future of these different kinds, levels, dimensions of events and realities.
13
a. Physical Dimension - refers to one’s body, one’s physicality, materiality i. 1.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
-
My Body/Physique as the cross section of the past, present and future PRESENT: - this present body that I have, that I am: located at this particular time and place with a particular nature, structure, features and dynamics. PAST: In this present body, the past is present, retained - this body with its present nature, structure, features and dynamics is determined by the past physical events; in fact by a series of physical events expanding billions and billions of years. - This particular kind of body is determined by, is the result of interaction of the genes of my parents, grandparents, etc. - The human genes goes back to 250,000 years ago: - Vertebrates: 700 million years ago - Coming to be of life-form: 2.5 billions years - Earth: 5 billions years ago - Universe: 15 billions years ago. FUTURE: The present body contains within itself some future possibilities. - man because of his present physical constitution determined by the past has certain: unique capacities and possibilities: e.g.: capable of performing certain operations distinct from animals, thus of accomplishing certain things unique physical limitations and incapacities. - These unique physical possibilities open man up to something of him and in him which will be realized in the future. And these unique physical limitations close him from some other possibilities of the future. My Body/Physique as a unique cross-section of past, present, and future the past, present, and future lines of physical events intersect or meet in a unique in my body. - The past physical events are retained in me and determine my present body in a unique way - My present body has unique features and characteristics - And my present body contains a unique set of possibilities and limitations. Conscious Cross-Section of the Physical Lines of Events unlike other material things (animate or inanimate), I am and can be aware/conscious of : - my present body, of its present nature, structure, characteristics and dynamism - the past physical events that determine my body to be what it is at present - of the possibilities and limitations contained in it - of its uniqueness Creative and Responsible Cross-Section of the Physical Lines of Events At the present moment, I can be creative and responsible with my: - Past Physical Lines of Events: Creative and responsible in my understanding of how the past physical lines of events determine my physicality and other aspects of my life Creative and responsible in my acceptance or rejection of the past physical lines of events - Future Physical Lines of Events: Creative and responsible in my consciousness of the different possibilities and limitations of my physicality Creative and responsible in the realization of the different possibilities Creative and responsible in my acceptance of my physical limitations.
2. Interpersonal Dimension - Who am I is determined in significant extent by the relationships that I have with other persons - This network of different relationships with other persons as it constitutes/defines my personhood, identity is what we call as the INTERPERSONAL DIMENSION. - This network of relationships consists: - Family relationship: immediate, remote; by blood, by affinity - Neighbors - Peers - Others i.
The Interpersonal Dimension as a cross section of past, present and future 14
1.
Present:
-
2.
my interpersonal dimension is the present network of relationships that I have at present, here and now, whether I like it or not, I am related in particular way to my Father, Mother, Brothers, Sisters, Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, to my classmates, peers to my neighbor to the person next to me
Past: the present particular network of relationships that I have (the kind of persons I am related with and the kind of relationships I have with them) is determined by the past interpersonal events, i.e. relationship established in the past. Juan is my father and I am his son because my father approached my mother, they became friends, then lovers. And later they got married. Pedro became my friend because our parents have been friends even since they were little children. Future: - The present network of relationship contains within itself different possibilities and limitations for interpersonal relationship (the kind of person I will be related with and the kind of relationships that I will have) Kind of person: - Because he is my brother, his children will be my nieces and nephews Kind of relationship: - Since he is my father, and I am his son, I could be good son, disobedient son, a caring son.
-
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
Unique Cross-Section of the Past, Present, Future Interpersonal Lines of Events the past, present, and future lines of interpersonal events intersect or meet in a unique way in me, constituting me to be a unique person. - The past physical events are retained in me and determine my present network of relationships in a unique way - My present network of relationships has unique shades and tones. - And my present network of relationships contains a unique set of possibilities and limitations. Conscious Cross-Section of the Past, Present, Future Interpersonal Lines of Events I am and can be conscious/aware: - Of my present network of interpersonal relationships - Of the past network of relationships as they determine my present network of interpersonal relationship - Of the future possibilities contained in the present network of interpersonal relationships - Of the unique intersection of my past, present network of interpersonal relationships
Creative and Responsible Cross-Section of the Past, Present, Future Interpersonal Lines of Events - At the present moment with a given network of interpersonal relations, I can be creative and responsible with my: - Past Interpersonal Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible: in my understanding of how network of relationship determines my present network of relationships in attaching value and meaning to the past network of interpersonal relations in my acceptance or rejection of the past network of interpersonal relations - Future Interpersonal Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible: in my consciousness of the different possibilities and limitations of my present network of relations Creative and responsible in the realization of the different possibilities: - I could separate the different lines of future interpersonal events - I could put together the different lines of future interpersonal events Creative and responsible in my acceptance of its limitations.
3. Social Dimension - Social dimension refers to: - Social Worldview (Culture): Common ways of perceiving, valuing, and behaving that characterize a particular group of people who live together at a particular place and at a particular period of time. 15
Not simply determined by, derivative from or reducible to individual ways of perceiving, valuing, and behaving; nor just a product of the interpersonal relationships. Rather, my way of perceiving, valuing and behaving is largely determined by the society in which I live, is reflective of its worldview, is a manifestation of its worldview. Social Structures: stable pattern of proceeding, operating with regard to: Making decisions for the society, for the common good: Political Structure Production, Distribution and Consumption of the economic goods: Economic Structure Relationship between classes, groups, sectors in a society: Social Structure Transmitting, inculcating the societal worldview: Cultural Structure -
-
-
i. 1.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
Social Dimension as the Cross-Section of Past, Present and Future Present - to exist here and now, at present is to find myself: with a particular way of perceiving, valuing and behaving which reflects and is determined in great extent by the society in which I live in a particular social structures, i.e. with an already stable pattern of how the society which I live in proceeds politically, economically, socially, culturally. Past - the present societal way of perceiving, valuing and behaving, and the present social structure are products of, are determined by the social events in the past: not only by the event of blind necessity if there is such thing but more importantly by free decisions of individuals and groups. Future - the present social dimension contains within itself certain possibilities not yet finished, fixed or closed open to other forms of realizations open to possible changes at different levels Unique Cross-Section of Past, Present and Future Lines of Social Events The past, present, and future lines of social events intersect in me in a unique way. - How the societal worldview and structure determine/determine my present way of perceiving, valuing and behaving, and the way I conduct myself politically, ecomincally, etc. in my given society is unique compared to other members of the same society - The past social events determine my present social dimension in a unique way - The possibilities contained in my present social dimension are unique and irrepeatable. Conscious Cross-Section of Past, Present and Future Lines of Social Events I can be conscious/aware of: - Present determination of the society on myself - How past social events determine/shape the society in which I am a part and which is a part/dimension of me. - Possibilities contained in the present: the unfinished, undisclosed character the possibility to change for the better of for the worse possibility to ratify or reject - unique intersection of the past, present and future lines of social events in me.
Creative and Responsible Cross-Section of Past, Present and Future Lines of Social Events - In my present social reality/dimension, I can be creative and responsible with - - Past Social Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible: in my understanding of how past social events determines the present society which I live in and which is in me in attaching value and meaning to those past social events in my acceptance or rejection of the past social events - Future Social Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible: in my consciousness of the different possibilities and limitations of the present social reality Creative and responsible in the realization of the different possibilities: - Whether what is good or bad in the society will continue in the future is a possibility which I could determine, respond and be creative to. 16
-
Creative and responsible in my acceptance of its limitations
4. Historical Dimension - very much related to societal dimension but a distinct reality, dimension - refers to our way of perceiving, valuing, behaving that is common to all people or society (not just to a particular group of people/society) at a particular period of time - spirit of the time ( zeitgeist ) i. 1.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
Historical Dimension as Cross-section of past, present and future Present - to exist here and now, at present is to find myself with a particular way of perceiving, valuing, and behaving which reflects and is determined by the time (decade, generation, century, period, age, etc.) I am living in or by spirit of the time (zeitgeist) - right now, I am living in an Age of : Materialism, Consumerism, Capitalism Globalization Postmodernity (characterized by pluralism, relativism, “superficiality”, little stories, virtuality) Information Past - my present historical dimension is not just product of or determined by my personal, and interpersonal history, nor could be explained simply by the history of my society. - It is determined by the entire history of humanity: History of Ancient Civilization, History of Christianity, History of Islam, History of Modern Science, History of the Rise of Modern States and Colonization, History of Industrialization, World War I-II, Neocolonization, Cold War, Post-Cold World War, Information Technology. Future - the present historical dimension contains within itself different possibilities and limitations. Historical Dimension as Unique Cross-Section The past, present, and future of the historical dimension intersect in me in a unique way: - How zeitgeist or spirit of the time determines my present way of perceiving, valuing and behaving is unique compared to those who also belong to the same time I am living in. - The past events of the whole humanity determine my present historical dimension in a unique way - The possibilities and unique contained in my present historical dimension are unique and irrepeatable. Historical Dimension as Conscious Cross-Section I can be conscious/aware of: - Present determination of the zeitgeist on myself - How past events of humanity determined/shaped time which I am living in and which is living in me. - Possibilities contained in the present: the unfinished, undisclosed character the possibility to change for the better of for the worse possibility to ratify or reject - unique intersection of the past, present and future lines of historical events in me.
Historical Dimension as Creative-Responsible Cross-Section - In my present historical dimension, I can be creative and responsible with - Past Historical Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible: in my consciousness, understanding of how past historical events of humanity determine the present time which I am living in and which is in me in attaching value and meaning to those past events in my acceptance or rejection of those past events - Future Interpersonal Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible: in my consciousness of the different possibilities and limitations of the present time I am living in Creative and responsible in the realization of the different possibilities: - Whether what is good or bad in the spirit of the time I am living in will continue in the future is a possibility which I could determine, respond and be creative to. 17
Creative and responsible in my acceptance of its limitations. 5. Personal Dimension - refers both to : - one’s personhood: an aspect of the concrete human person which is irreducible: cannot be reduced to one or all of his physical, interpersonal, social and historical dimensions and possibilities transcendent: goes beyond any determinations, conceptualization integrating, permanent totality: enables him to be one person with these diverse dimensions unfolding in time. Unique: makes him radically different from all others. - One’s ideal: One ultimate goal Absolute and permanent valued. Ultimate framework of meaning by which one lives his own life - The point of intersection between one’s personhood and ideal is what determines the final meaning of man’s individual/authentic life i. 1.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv. -
My Personal Dimension as Cross-Section of Past, Present and Future Present - to exist here and now is to find myself already with a set of ideals, permanent values which calls me to live in a particular way, which provides meaning and purpose to his life - and this set of ideal intersects in a particular way with my own personhood. Past - this set of ideals and how this intersect with my personhood are determined by my past personal experiences, interpersonal events, social and historical events. Future - this set of ideals and how this intersect with my personhood contains within them: the possibilities of rejecting or ratifying - the present set of ideals - how the set of ideal intersect with my personhood the possibilities of leading me to some related ideals and to even higher ideals and to greater possibilities of integrating more in an authentic way my personhood and ideals. My Personal Dimension as Unique Cross-Section The past, present, and future of my personal dimension intersect in me in a unique way: - My present set of ideals and how they intersect with my own personhood are unique - The past events: personal, interpersonal, social, historical and social event determine in a unique way my present set of ideals and how they intersect with my own personhood. I have inherited the past ideals of my family, society, my time in a unique - The possibilities and limitations offered contained in my present personal dimension is unique and unrepeatable My Personal Dimension as Conscious Cross-Section I could be conscious: - Of the present set of ideals that I have and how it intersects with my personhood - Of the inherited ideals I have assimilated from my family, society, time either consciously or unconsciously, willingly or unwillingly - Of the possibilities of ratifying or rejecting them, of how they lead me higher or lower ideals, of integrating them more authentically with my personhood. My Personal Dimension as Creative and Responsible Cross-Section In my present social reality/dimension, I can be creative and responsible with - Past of Personal Dimension. I can be creative and responsible: in my consciousness, understanding of how my past personal, interpersonal, social, historical events determine the present set of ideals that I have and how they intersect with my own personhood. in attaching value and meaning to these past events in my acceptance or rejection of these past events - Future Personal Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible: in my consciousness of the different possibilities and limitations of the present personal dimension. - I can be creative and responsible in my consciousness that I can reject or ratify the present set of ideal and how at present this intersects with my own personhood. 18
I can be creative and responsible in discovering other ideals and other ways of intersecting my chosen ideals with my own personhood. Creative and responsible in the realization of the different possibilities Creative and responsible in my acceptance of its limitations.
Summary/Conclusion:
-
As historical being, - At present, there is already something given, determined within me in my different dimensions (determined by my past in its different dimensions) - Facticity - Sense of Fate, Destiny - Set of Limitations - But within the given, determined of the present are the different possibilities, the unfinished, the undecided to which I could be creative and responsible - Transcendence - Sense of task, creativity and responsibility - Set of possibilities
C. Human Labor Philosophical Implications of Human Labor by Manuel B. Dy, Jr. Introduction Context: 1. Social Issues plaguing the country: - numerous worker strikes - increasing rate of unemployment - demands for higher wages - dichotomy between the white and blue-collared jobs - industrialization gap between rural and urban sector - the lagay and pakikisama system 2. More general issues - conflict of ideologies - capitalism vs communism - individualism vs collectivism - problem of objectification, depersonalization/functionalization of the worker in a highly technological set up. 3. PJP II – problems related to work, in the understanding of the dignity of labor A. Historical Valuation of Work 1. Primitive man - no specific value for work - for security and to offer sacrifice to the gods - work, not to change or manipulate the world, but appease the gods through ritual and magic 2. Greeks - central: to philosophize and take part in the activities of the polis - work, fitting only for the slaves and animals - work, to harmonize with nature, to repeat its rhythm - techne – simply the development of man’s natural abilities - division of labor, according to man’s natural needs and capacities - economy simply exchange of goods between consumers 3. Middle Ages - work in the light of God’s creation - to work is an imitation of God, a participation in his creative act - work as toil, consequence of sin - craftsmen, esteemed than merchants who work for profit - studying is not work 4. St. Thomas - good for man for it can cultivate virtue of industriousness - no intrinsic value for requires no intellectual talent 5 Monks - ora et labora – work is noble, as long as one is not attached to its fruits but offers it to God. th 6. 16 – 19th centuries - growing individualism, rise of natural sciences - no limit of making profit - rise of the cult of work: everyone must work, man as homo economicus B. Marx’s Philosophy of Work Intro – Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818, Trier , Germany – March 14, 1883, London) was a German philosopher, political economist, and revolutionary. Karl Marx was born into a Jewish family in Trier, in the Rhineland region of Germany. His father Heinrich, who had descended from a long line of rabbis, converted to Christianity, despite his many deistic tendencies and his admiration of such Enlightenment
19
figures as Voltaire and Rousseau. Marx's father was actually born Herschel Mordechai, but when the Prussian authorities would not allow him to continue practicing law as a Jew, he joined the official denomination of the Prussian state, Lutheranism, which accorded him advantages, as one of a small minority of Lutherans in a predominantly Roman Catholic region. The Marx household hosted many visiting intellectuals. Till the age of thirteen, Marx was educated at home. After graduating from the Trier Gymnasium, Marx enrolled in the University of Bonn in 1835 at the age of 17 to study law, where he joined the Trier Tavern Club drinking society and at one point served as its president; his grades suffered as a result. Marx was interested in studying philosophy and literature, but his father would not allow it because he did not believe that his son would be able to comfortably support himself in the future as a scholar. The following year, his father forced him to transfer to the far more serious and academically oriented Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin. During this period, Marx wrote many poems and essays concerning life, using the theological language acquired from his liberal, deistic father, such as "the Deity," but also absorbed the atheistic philosophy of the Young Hegelians who were prominent in Berlin at the time. Marx earned a doctorate in 1841 with a thesis titled The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, but he had to submit his dissertation to the University of Jena as he was warned that his reputation among the faculty as a Young Hegelian radical would lead to a poor reception in Berlin. - In Labor, man becomes man and nature becomes nature for man. “The whole of world history is nothing but the creation of man by human labor, and the emergence of nature for man.” 1. Human labor vs animal labor - animals produce necessary only for themselves and for their young to survive, i.e., under the compulsion of direct physical need; they produce only themselves, in a single direction. - thus their products belong to their physical body, through their labor, they are one with their life activity, no distinction between themselves and their activity. - while, when man works, he works universally. does not produce only for physical need, also produces when free from such need. he produces the whole of nature, he is not confined to his own species. he produces in the standard of the species and with the laws of beauty. - he is free in the face of his product, not completely identified with his work. “Man can make his life activity itself an object of his will and consciousness.” His own life becomes an object for him, his labor is a free activity. - Human labor for Marx is a process between man and nature., a metabolism, established, regulated and controlled by man. he transforms the earth by work, by changing nature, he changes himself. the development of work, is of man. 2. Development of labor, a process of production. In a strict sense, only man can produce. He uses instruments and extensions to produce. Work develops as the means are perfected. Civilization be judged not by what is produced but by the means used. 3. Tools imply division of labor. makes man interdependent with his fellowman. Labor thus leads man to be social, working for one another. In work, I am a fellowman. 4. Work, provides interconnection in mankind’s history. The past leaves behind for use, the present will do something for the future. through work, we have a common history. 5. Work, an end in itself, a value in itself. Thus against working for the sake of wage and the capitalistic system that makes work and worker a commodity. Work cant be reduced to a means to live. Man lives in order to work, for work is the way for man to realize his true humanity. C. Implications in the History of Work - History o work indicates a change. - human nature remain essentially the same, but his understanding on himself develops. 1. primitive man – himself and his value as a member of a tribe and the gods the tribe worships. Work part of sacred nature. He is an outcome of the mechanisms, processes and forces in the cosmos. 2. Greeks – look down upon work and contrasts it with the ideal of contemplation. Man may be part of nature, but rationality differentiates him from the rest, liberates him from the finitude of nature. True man is free man, free from the servitude to nature. 3. Middle Ages – work contrasted with study, with rational activity. It is noble in so far as it reflects man as a creature of God and member of the Christian community. His dignity lies in his being created in the image and likeness of God which is found in his rational soul. His duty is to attain his final destiny – union with God, beatific vision. 4. 16th – 19th cent. – gradual rise of capitalism, man becomes a master and controller of nature. His dignity, lies on his ability to stand for himself, to acquire mastery over nature and his passions. Man as subjectivity imprisoned in itself. 5. Marx – man is a human natural being – a being who treats himself as the present, living species. He can make the community his object both practically and theoretically. The latter is simply the abstraction of the practical. His ability to make himself his own object proves the universal and the freedom of man. Man is man because he can objectify himself through labor. By producing, he transcends, objectifies himself by means of nature thus asserting his being as a free being. His produce is his externalization, nature becomes humanized – reflecting man’s being as man, as species being – creative, free, universal. Originally, natural is not necessarily human, it becomes, when it assumes a social dimension. “Society the accomplished union of man with nature.” Man produces and must produce for the society with the consciousness of acting as a social being. Only then is the work human and the object, social. Through his work he relates with other human beings because he produces universally; taking upon himself whole of nature and humanity. His work is human when it includes the community.
20
D. Work and Man in the Technological Era The exaggeration of Marx, dehumanize the worker in the capitalistic system dominating his time. Now, the age of “technocracy” – of machines and computers, dominating the thinking and behavior of man. Technology has not just transformed nature, it has forced nature to reveal its secrets. Man does not just conform to his surroundings, he made the earth become. Before, his needs determine production, now he creates to stock and creates demand through advertising. Modern work is mastery over nature. Work is very important that it determines where man is to live – it has mobilized man. Problem: anonymous ties in urban life, identification of the person with his function, drudgery of repetitious specialized labor, the bureaucracy of institutions – functionalization and depersonalization of the person. Work, not just for realization of man, it threatens to swallow him. Work and man, as incarnate subjectivity, manifests his freedom, his rationality, not just in work but also in word. Word, much an embodiment o man’s subjectivity as work, but with more total grasp of the world than work. It can be a corrective for work, e.g. seminars, retreats, tsismis By his rationality, man transforms nature in order to build up forces of higher purposes…surplus – leisure, basis of culture. Not just to have food, clothing, etc. through it we exteriorize ourselves, manifesting our personalities and culture. We can’t work too long, we need to rest and seek leisure or play, to be just ourselves. Modern work can be contemplation and culture. All these activities, aims at man himself – expressing and communicating himself. Not the variety of work, the value of work lies in the worker, the dignity of man as embodies person, free, communicating and one in the diversity of his acts.
21
