Lecture 2

B. The Philosophical Approaches to the Study of Man"Existentialism and Man's Search form Meaning" by Manuel Dy, Jr.

Introduction:

- as there are many definitions of philosophy and many schools of philosophy, so there are many approaches to the philosophical reflection/inquiry on man.

- In our course, we will not examine all the different approaches in a specific and elaborate manner. - Rather, using Manuel Dy's article,

- first, we just study the fundamental approaches which could be discerned if we survey the three periods in the History of Western Philosophy and examine what is distinctive in each period in its philosophical reflection on man:- we could characterize the distinctive fundamental approach of each period as:

- Ancient Philosophy: COSMOCENTRIC - Medieval: THEOCENTRIC- Modern: ANTHROPOCENRIC

- These three fundamental approaches do not explain away the uniqueness, and the subtle and nuanced distinction of the different philosophies within each period nor they are true in the same extent to all philosophers in each period.

- then, we will study in details one particular approach: Existentialism, which is the approach taken in this course.

1. Three Fundamental Approaches to the Philosophical Reflection on Man

a. Ancient Philosophy: COSMOCENTRIC APPROACHi. Primary and Central Concern of Philosophical Inquiry/Reflection

- the COSMOS: - totality of things as ordered, harmonious, stable/consistent, as unity in diversity- not with a part of the cosmos

- what they are primarily looking for is the basic stuff, the ultimate or first principle of the Cosmos (Proto-Arche)- origin and source of all things, of their Order, Unity, Harmony and Stability- that which governs the cosmos, the totality of all things- what constitutes the cosmos as cosmos.

- to find this first principle is TRUTH, EPISTEME (ideal knowledge), WISDOM- cosmos and its first principle are conceived differently by the ancient philosophers:

Philosophers Cosmos Proto-ArchePre-Socratics Totality of Things Material StuffPlato World of Things and

World of IdeasIdeas

Aristotle One World of Concrete Things made up of matter and form.

4 Causes or Principle: material, efficient, formal, final

ii. Man- is seen, conceived and understood as part of the cosmos, in relation to the cosmos- he might be different from other things, but he is similar to the cosmos- in fact, man is a cosmos in miniature, a microcosm; there is a proper proportionality

between cosmos and man- to understand the cosmos is to understand man- if the cosmos is made of material stuff, then man is a material reality- if the cosmos is a duality of the world of things and world of ideas, then man is a

duality of Body and Soul- if the cosmos is one world of matter and form, man is one substance made up of

body (matter) and soul (form).

iii. Ethics- man's action/life is good when it is in accord:

- with his nature- if what is proper to man is his soul, particularly his rationality, then virtue

consists in doing according to one's rationality, actions determined by reason rather than by passion or bodily desires.

- with Nature as a whole, with the Cosmos- Ideal/Primary Virtue: Wisdom which consists in Contemplation/Theoria, i.e. detached

meditation/study of the world/cosmos.

b. Medieval Philosophy: THEOCENTRIC APPROACH- with the collapse of the Graeco-Roman civililzation, and the coming and predominance

of Christianity in Medieval Europe, there was a shift in the content and method of philosophizing.

i. Primary and Central Concern of Philosophical Inquiry/Reflection- GOD/FAITH:

1

- Not as known by man himself using reason- God of Revelation: God as he revealed himself, what he has revealed about

himself, about Man and the World- Everything is seen in relation to God and what he has revealed- Philosophy is used to explicitate, defend, explain and systematize the faith. - And philosophical issues, speculation, insight arose out of faith and were referred back

to faith.- In this sense, philosophy became a handmaid of theology/faith.

ii. Man- Part of Nature, Cosmos- Cosmos:

- is not seen in itself, not simply in terms of its own consistency, harmony, unity and stability but in relation to God, the Absolutely Transcendent Reality

- Creator-Creation relationship- Though man is part of nature, he has unique and special relationship with God

compared to anything, compared to the totality of the things or created order- Thus, man is seen not simply in relation to the cosmos, but in his unique relationship

with God and God's unique relationship with him.

iii. Ethics- his action is to be conformed to the Natural Law- Natural Law is understood as the Divine Laws which man comes to know by the use of

his natural faculty, his own reason- To conform to the natural law is to conform to the divine law- Ideal/virtue: contemplation of God in himself and His creation in relation to God

c. Modern Philosophy: ANTHROPOCENTRIC APPROACH

i. General Remarks:- shift in primary and central concern: from the cosmos, from God to man himself

- everything is seen in relation to man, and man is starting point, point of departure for any philosophical reflection

- subjective turn/shift:- subject: the one who philosophizes, the one who knows about nature, about God,

has now become the important, primary, fundamental and central object of philosophical reflection.

ii. Historical Development of the Anthropocentric Approach of Modern Philosophy

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)- the shift from Nature/God to man himself as the primary, fundamental and central

concern of philosophy was initiated decisively or became evident in the philosophy of Rene Descartes. How did he effect the shift?

- He was impressed by the progress made in the Sciences and Mathematics during his time

- Yet, he was dismayed by the contradictions and disagreements of philosophical disciplines that made all knowledge and disciplines stand on a shaky and uncertain foundation.

- As a consequence, all disciplines and forms of knowledge could be doubted even mathematics.

- He made as the primary task of his philosophy, as his obsession to discover the indubitable knowledge, a knowledge which is beyond any trace of doubt. This knowledge alone could be the foundation of all knowledge, and from this knowledge, he would establish a new system or order of knowledge

- To accomplish this, he first came up with a method and the most important element of this method is what is called as the METHODIC DOUBT: - to examine everything thoroughly whether there is any trace doubt- to accept only as true that which has no trace of doubt- and to consider as false anything which has any trace (even the slightest) of doubt.

- Applying this method, he examined everything thoroughly for any trace of doubt:- Letters (Books and Masters): nothing in them which is beyond any trace of doubt- World (Men/Women who are involved with the affair of the world): same result- Himself (What he himself knows and claims): same result

- Yet as he was about to consider everything as doubtful, as uncertain and therefore false, it came evident/obvious to him what was beyond any trace of doubt: that he thinks, therefore he exists; I think, there I am (Cogito, ergo sum).- If Everything could be doubted, then there is one thing that is beyond doubt that he

doubts- Doubting is form of thinking, form of consciousness- Then, what is beyond doubt is that he thinks, has consciousness.- But for him to think, it necessarily follows that he exists; his existence is as certain

as his thinking

2

- Thus, he is a thinking substance and his existence as a thinking substance is beyond any doubt.

- Descartes believed that he had come to the Ultimate principle of philosophizing, starting point and foundation of all forms of knowledge: Man, the thinking substance- All knowledge should be founded and derived from this- From the certainty of the I that thinks (thinking substance), one comes to certain

knowledge of God and Nature- However, man, as the foundation of Philosophy is seen by Descartes simply as a

knowing subject, a thinking subject. The very foundation of philosophy is what man himself knows, man who knows.

- Thus, anthropocentric shift of Descartes is specifically an epistemological turn. This epistemological leads to two great epistemological schools of Early Modern Philosophy or also Pre-Kantian Philosophy:- Continental Rationalism: Primacy of Reason in knowing- British Empiricism: Primacy of the Senses in knowing

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)- There are three fundamental questions that Kant tries to address in his philosophy:

- What do I know? Critique of Pure Reason - What ought I to do? Critique of Practical Reason- What can I hope for? Critique of Judgment

What do I know?- In addressing the epistemological question, he tries to synthesize Rationalism and

Empiricism.- man does not know simply from, in and through the sense data (Empiricism)

nor man simply knows through his reason (Rationalism)- but man knows by subjecting/conforming what is given by the extra-mental

reality through/in the senses to the a priori forms or conditions or structure of the mind:

- forms:- are a priori in the sense that the are not derived from experience, sense

data but intrinsic to the very structure of the mind- a priori forms of:

- Sensibility: Time and Space- Understanding: 10 categories, e.g. Cause and Effect

- Consequences/Implications of his Epistemological Theory:- Noumenon-Phenomenon Distinction

- Reality/thing in itself (noumenon) could not known- Reality/thing as its appears to us (phenomenon) is what we know, can be

known- Copernican Revolution

- Old theory of truth: conformity of mind to reality- Kant's Theory of truth: conformity of reality to mind.

What ought I to do? What can I hope for?- Kant was not only interested on what man knows as the starting point on any

philosophical reflection as this would lead us or establish or make sense only the Scientific and Mathematical Truths

- But this does not lead us or establish or make sense Metaphysical Truths: - God- Soul - World

- For Kant, to come to these metaphysical truths, we must inquire into what man ought to do, and this will lead to these truths as postulates of morality. And to see the connection between order of the universe in which we experience and the moral laws/obligations of which God, Soul and World are postulates, we inquire on the question of meaning and purpose.

- Thus, we must start our philosophizing not only with man as knowing subject but also as moral agent, and as subject in search of meaning and purpose of his existence.

George Wilhelm Freiderich Hegel (1770-1831)- after Kant, philosophy turned again to metaphysical question (cosmological question),

departing from the anthropocentric approach of the Pre-Kantian Modern Philosophy. It reached it height in the philosophy of Hegel

- Hegel was primarily and fundamentally concern with the question of metaphysics:- What is ultimate reality

- Source and origin of all realities- That which account/explain the unity/relation of all the reality (system)

- What is structure and dynamism of reality?- For Hegel,

- The ultimate/absolute reality: GEIST (Absolute Spirit, Mind, Idea)

3

- The Geist develops by embodying itself in history through a triadic dialectical process of thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis.

- All realities other than the Geist are just aspects or certain stages of the mind, just embodiment of the mind as it develops in and through history.

- Man:- seen in relation to the Geist, to its unfolding, embodiment and development in

History through a triadic dialectical process- is the highest unfolding, manifestation and development of the Geist among

individual realities- compared to Nature, man has consciousness; man is the Geist coming to

consciousness (Spirit) in three forms:- Subject Spirit:

- Manifestation of the Geist in the finite, individual consciousness of nature, of his action, of himself

- Objective Spirit:- Manifestation of the Geist in the world of laws and ethical

institutions, i.e. family, civil society, and state. In short, CULTURE.- Absolute Spirit:

- Self-Consciousness: - Human spirit comes to consciousness of its unity with the

Absolute Spirit- consciousness of the Geist as Geist.- Geist comes to consciousness of itself as the one and only reality

in which nature and finite spirit are manifestations and stages in its coming into self-consciousness.

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)- Contemporary Philosophy is commonly characterized as a reaction against Hegel's

philosophy.- One such reaction is the philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard who is considered as the

Father of Existentialism- Kierkegaard reacted against Hegel on two important points:

1. Hegel's Imperialism of the Absolute Idea/Spirit over the Individuals- Hegel subordinates the individual, the concrete man or woman at every point

to the Universal Absolute Spirit.- In his theory of knowledge, the knowledge of the finite mind is only a

manifestation of the universal.- In his metaphysics, he reduces the individual to simply a manifestation of

the Universal Spirit as unfolds and develops itself in and through history- In his ethics, actions and duties of the concrete, individual man or woman

are to be determined not by him/her conscience but his/her position/relation to the Absolute Spirit, to the Institutions and Laws which are higher manifestations of the Spirit than himself/herself as individual

- In his philosophy of history, all individuals are regarded as mere instruments used by the "cunning" of the Geist for its universal purpose

- For Kierkegaard, - each concrete, individual man:

- Is not a cog in a machine, a part of a system:- Not to be fitted into a system- Whose value/dignity and identity cannot be defined, determined

in relation to the working and purpose of the machine, of the entire system

- Whose value and dignity is:- in his uniqueness, in his/her being over and above any

system, - in becoming more and more an individual, a unique reality

through the choices that he makes- never a closed, complete state

- Each man is unique, irrepeatable individual which stands open to an untenuous, unshaped future

- To philosophize is to consider first the individual for existence is always that of individuals.

2. Against Hegel's Rationalism, Kierkegaard asserts that:- Man is not just a bundle of ideas by which he knows reality as it is:

- Not just reason,- No simply in search of truth

- Man is INFINITE PASSION- Makes choices/decisions about himself, about his life and destiny- Makes choices, decisions that really matter to him, make a difference in

his life- In this way, he searches for the meaning of his life and not simply for

truth

4

- The object of his choice, of his search is beyond reason:- cannot be fully grasped by reason- paradoxical- even absurd before reason

- thus, he makes a decision about himself, his life by leaping into the abyss and in fear and trembling.

- Thus, with Kierkegaard, PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION ON MAN:- deals with man in the concrete, in his existential, concrete and unique

reality- not with man in general, just any man, like any other man.

2. PARTICULAR APPROACH: EXISTENTIALISM

a. Preliminary Remarksi. Not a philosophical system but a philosophical movement, an attitude or frame of mind.

- a philosophical system:- in the same way/sense that Platonism, Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism, Thomism,

Cartesianism, or Hegelianism is a philosophical system- attempts to understand the individual existence within a conceptual framework or

scheme/structure of reality that would exhibit the logical connection between individual realities and the Totality of Reality.

- Existentialism is not a philosophical system:- arises as a reaction against any form of philosophical systematization to which man

is fitted to make sense of his identity and dignity like something into an over-all scheme, like fitting a cog into a machine- it considers man in his uniqueness, in its concreteness which could not fitted,

or absorbed or boxed into any kind of neat system.- Not philosophical system in the sense that there is no existential philosophy but

existential philosophies- Embraces a diverse philosophies which have different and even opposing

answers to the same questions, even the most the fundamental philosophical issues.

- Do not agree even in any one ordinary point.

ii. The question of the meaning of man's existence is more important than the answers- for the Existentialists, philosophy is primarily and fundamentally about philosophy of

man- the fundamental, primary and central question of philosophy is man- specifically: the meaning and purpose of human life, what is to be human

- Existentialist philosophies have to do with asking questions about the meaning and purpose of one's life, about the meaning and purpose of one's existential situation in which one finds himself

- The raising of the questions of meaning and purpose is more important than the answers- And the answers to these questions they try to communicate or articulate are not simply

to let us know the answers to our own existential question but to shock us, to dispose us, to lead us to ask the same questions ourselves and to find answers for them.

b. Two Types/Tendencies/Camps of Existentialist Philosophers- inspite of great divergence among individual existentialist philosophers/thinkers, they could

be divided into main camps or groups

ATHEISTIC THEISTICFriedrich Nietzsche (1844--1900) Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) Martin Buber (1878-1965)Mauice Merleau-Ponty (1907-1961) Karl Jaspers (1883-1969)Albert Camus (1913-1960) Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973)

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

c. Common Features of Existential Philosophies- though:

- there is no single type/form of existentialist philosophy but several, diverse existentialist philosophies corresponding to the number of existentialist philosophers

- there are considerable and fundamental differences among those which are customarily called existentialist philosophers

- there are denials and counter-denials by some thinkers being labeled as existentialist.- Yet we are justified in classifying them under the title/label, Existentialist Philosophy or

Existentialism because of the common features, concerns, emphasis, themes among the them

- However, we have to keep in mind that each of common features/elements we will discuss below is interpreted by or is present in each philosopher in a unique way.

- In our discussion, we will limit ourselves on five important common features of the philosophers customarily called as Existentialists.

i. Philosophizes from the actor’s rather than spectator’s point of view.

5

- issues/problems that an existentialist deals, considers:- arise out of his own personal experience and personal situation, out of his own

struggle as he lives his day to day life.- Personally matter to him

- His person, his identity, his life, the meaning and purpose of his existence is at stake.

- Cannot be regarded with purely detached interest of a spectator, or objective observer, i.e. someone who is not part or not affected of the problem or issue being considered.

- Rather, he grapples with, confronts them as one who is personally and deeply in them with his whole being.

- Thus, an existentialist could not divorce his life from his philosophizing- Method:

- To draw out the questions/issues and to find answers or arrive at insights to these questions/issues from his own personal experience and situation, he makes use of phenomenological method

- This method is descriptive:- It tries to describe rather than explain a particular kind of experience in such a

way that the structure and meaning of such experience or set of experiences is unfolded or revealed.

- Articulation/Expression:- To articulate the questions/issues, and the insight arrived at to these

questions/issues, they make use:- not only of discursive form of articulation: like essay, treatise, argumentation- but also narrative: novel, short stories, play and even poems.

ii. Stresses the Subjectivity of Man- subject and object distinction

- object: - that which is the receiver of the action/operation- that which is acted upon, known, determined, manipulated, controlled, etc.

- subject:- that which is the origin/source of the action, the doer of the action- that which does, knows, acts upon, determines, manipulates, control

- man is an object in certain extent- can be known, manipulated, determined, controlled, acted upon,

- but at the same, man is not only a subject but a subjectivity- at his very depth, he is the origin, source, of his initiative, - he is that which knows, controls, determines, acts upon, etc.- this source/origin, unlike any other, is transcending (which goes beyond)

- transcends any determination, knowledge, control, manipulation- transcends all the qualities, functions, and possibilities and stamps all these

with recognizable sign of uniqueness, and unity- tends to go beyond itself (transcending)- a mystery: inexhaustible aspect of the person.

- man is not like any other subject, he is a transcending subject, a subjectivity- this subjectivity of man/woman is what constitutes human being, his/her being a person.

iii. Emphasizes on Man’s Existence, man as situated- Existence:

- Ex-sistere: to stand outside- To be outside of one self, to stand outside of one self- To exist is to exist in something outside, other than oneself

- Man as Existence- Man as a subjectivity needs and finds himself in what he himself is not, something

outside of himself in order to be, to exist, to be a subject.- He is unlike the Absolute Spirit

- Which is a pure subject which exists in itself and does not need anything a part from himself for its very reality, for its subjectivity.

- But man as a subjectivity exists outside of himself, without which he does not exist, he is not what he is, a subjectivity

- He is unlike Material reality- Which is pure object, no subjectivity

- What constitutes as the fundamental situation of man, what is this outside of man as subject in which he finds himself and which is constitutive of his being and identity?- Heidegger:

- To exist is to exist in the world- Man is being-in-the-world; being-thrown-in-the-world, being-there (Dasein)

- He realizes himself, his subjectivity, his potentialities in the world- Man is what he is, could be what he is by being immersed in the body, in

the physical world, whose utmost limit is the world.- Kierkegaard:

- To exist is to exist in relation to God, to exist before God.

6

- To exist is to exist in relation of freedom, commitment, obedience, submission (faith) to God before whom one makes a choice/decision in fear and trembling.

- Karl Jasper- To exist is to exist to find oneself in a limit-situation (a facticity: a situation

which I did not determine yet it determines my possibilities in life) through which I transcend myself and eventually find God by philosophic faith (belief in freedom, in the inadequacy of the person alone, to transcending the ordinary world)

- Gabriel Marcel- To exist is to co-exist: to exist with other subjectivity and for others- man as a subject does not exist without the presence of other subjects to

whom, for whom, he must exist in fidelity and disponsible- Jean Paul Sartre

- To exist is to exist in freedom, to be condemned to freedom- To exist is to find oneself in a situation in which he could not escape from

making choices, decisions, so that even his unfreedom, his denial/refusal or inability to choose is itself a choice, though a bad choice.

- Maurice Merlau-Ponty- To exist is to exist meaningfully- Man is condemned to meaning,

- to look, find meaning for his life- to look, find meaning for the world in which he himself in

- Albert Camus- To exist is to exist in absurdity/meaninglessness of life, in which man must

rebel (metaphysical rebellion)- Image: Myth of Sisyphus

iv. Emphasizes on the Freedom of Man- Man as subjectivity immersed/finding itself outside of himself is free.

- Kierkegaard: - Stages/Levels of Freedom

- Aesthetic Stage: choose what is pleasure- Ethical Stage: choose what is good and reasonable- Religious Stage: choose what is beyond reason, even what seemingly

contradicts reason; leap into faith, into an abyss, into darkness in fear and trembling.

- Heidegger- Human Freedom: self-transcendence in time

- Man as Dasein (being there)- Being-ahead-of-himself- Right in the very present, he is already ahead of himself in the sense:

- In the present, the possibilities of his future are already contained- In the present, he realizes, determines, shapes his future by the

choices that he makes with regard to the possibilities at the moment- The decision, choice he makes is made in view of the future.

- In the present moment, he can free himself from the determination of the past by embracing embracing/determining his future possibilities which are contained in his present determination.

- Sartre:- Human freedom is absolute freedom

- Man’s essence is not something given before he exists, which he must recognize, unfold and realize

- But is something that he himself creates/defines by his own decision and choices

- All other things become an obstacle or a means in relation to the kind of self I have determined, shaped by my choices.

- Merleau-Ponty- Man already finds himself in a situation in which:

- he has not chosen- determined by others

- yet within the situation/facticity are the possibilities which I could realize by my choice through which I could transcend, go beyond my present determination, through which the present situation will no longer determine me as it is now.

- Gabriel Marcel:- Freedom is not just :

- freedom from - and freedom to

- But more profoundly, it is FREEDOM FOR, FREEDOM WITH.

v. Propagates Authentic Existence vs. Inauthentic Existence- Inauthentic Self/Existence:

- “they self”, crowd, herd-mentality- my identity, my value is determined by others, by the “they”, by the “herd”- the crowd, herd, “they” are nameless, impersonal mass.

7

- Inability and refusal to determine my action, my life, my value (bad faith)- Inability and refusal to realize one’s own unique possibilities, self-project

which is unrepeatable- Inability and refusal to make a personal decision.- Consequently, inability and refusal to take responsibility

- Depersonalized, functionalized man:- Living in a mass society- Identifies himself with the roles and functions of a society- Identifies himself and his dignity with what he has. (Being vs. Having)

- Indifferent, tranquilized, without passion (Le Stranger)- Authentic Self/Existence:

- Freely decides, commits himself to the realization of his personal project/self-project, his unique/unrepeatable possibility which could never be reduced, defined by any crowd, and which could never be identified with the functions and role given by society

- Chooses, leads his own life, to realize the idea, the truth, the value which he himself discovers, appreciates, which he himself could own. - Owning one’s idea, truth, value and living accordingly to it.

- Not necessarily eccentric nor immoral- But life lived PERSONALLY, FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY.

d. Existentialism and Valuei. The Question of Value

- For an Existentialist, the question of value (the question worth, significance, good) - cannot be separated from question of meaning and purpose: What does it mean to

exist? What is the meaning purpose of life, of human life?- In short, not separated from human existence, human life.

- If human life is to be authentically lived (i.e. personally, freely, responsibly), there must be something for which I live and die for, some meaning and purpose in my life.

- Value: - Is that which a person lives and dies for- That to which an authentic person commits himself as it is very important,

significant, meaningful to him- What I am striving for

ii. Is Value Subjective or Objective? BOTH- Subjective:

- Value presupposes/demands a subject/person for whom the object - is considered significant, of worth- is that for which he lives and dies for

- for a thing to be a value, there must be someone, a subject who values it, desires, for whom it is an object of his desire, will

- in short, value is subjective in the sense that it is always a VALUE-TO-ME, VALUE-TO-A-SUBJECT.

- Objective:- Value also presupposes that there is an OBJECTIVE REALITY:

- reality which exists in itself, - independent of the subject, of one’s desire, of one’s will- not a product of my imagination, or product of my thinking

- Value is always connected with truth- Truth: correspondence of my consciousness of a value to an extramental-

reality- I cannot live and die for what I think is untrue, an illusion, a product of

imagination, and thinking.iii. Where do values come from?

- For Atheistic Existentialists:- Man is the ultimate source of value

- Value springs from man’s freedom to commit himself to what he considers as significant or important to him

- Him: as an individual or to the whole of humanity- No outside source can be attributed to values

- For Theistic Existentialists:- Admits that man is the subjective source of value

- What is of value in this world is a value for man: individuals or humanity- Yet the ultimate source/ground of value is the Absolute Reality or God

- What is significant to me as individual and to humanity points to an absolute value who grounds all other values

- Why? for my valuing is always finite, limited and needs to be grounded on absolute value who gives final and complete fulfillment to my life.

- Nevertheless, the search for value whether for Atheists or Theist is a search from within that erupts to the outside.

8