Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
HANDOUT NO. 2
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.
ii. Yet not all my answers to this question point solely to may body. They also refer 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 myself, my identity, my humanity, 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 Problem of Philosophy of Man: Soul-Body Problem, Mind-Body 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 more than 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 Answers from the History of Philosophy
a. Plato (430-350 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 World was drawn by its appetite
downward and was incarnated or imprisoned into the body.
ii. Man in the present state
- 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. Aristotle (304-322 B.C.)
- man: one substance whose matter is his body and whose form is his soul
- Substance:
- etymology:
- Greek word:
- ousia (which means something that is solid, abiding
- hupokeimenon (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:
2
c.
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)
Primary Reflection
- Nature of primary reflection
- 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
5
2.
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
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
ii. Responsibility/Duty
Any sort of possession implies
RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY
-
iii. Control
Any sort of possession implies CONTROL
-
c.
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:
7
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 bodys 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:
- 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 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
- 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
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.
3.
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.
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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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
iv. 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.
- 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.
3.
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
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. 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.
- 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.
the present historical dimension contains within itself different possibilities and
limitations.
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 mans natural abilities
- division of labor, according to mans natural needs and capacities
- economy simply exchange of goods between consumers
3. Middle Ages
- work in the light of Gods 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.
6. 16th 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. Marxs 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
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-Universitt 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.
18
4. Work, provides interconnection in mankinds 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 mans 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.
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 mans 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 purposessurplus
leisure, basis of culture. Not just to have food, clothing, etc. through it we exteriorize ourselves,
manifesting our personalities and culture. We cant 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.
19