Philosophy of the Human

Person
JOEL C. PORRAS
FACULTY
ATENEO DE ZAMBOANGA
UNIVERSITY
1
To philosophize is to wonder about life
About love and loneliness
Birth and death
About Truth, Beauty and Freedom
To philosophize is to explore Life
By asking painful Questions

2
When Man is confronted with Mystery, or with
Something whose causes are still unknown, he
wonders why.
Such for Socrates, was the beginning of Wisdom.

In the Theaetetus, Socrates says :

“ Wonder is the feeling of a Philosopher, and

Philosophy begins in Wonder”.

( Plato, Theaetetus, 155 B. Benjamin Jewett in

vol. 7of Great Books, p. 519 ) 3
 The Experience of Wonder
This willingness to stand in a relaxed
receptivity before an object involves a
certain reverence, epistemological
humility and willingness to appreciate…
out of such admiration grows gratitude
and the impulse to celebrate, or possibly
even to worship.
4
 What does it mean then to wonder?

“To wonder means to realize that there is

something strange behind the things that we
ordinarily perceive. To wonder is to notice
something extraordinary in the ordinary things
we see”.

( For the love of Wisdom by Chris John-Terry, An explanation of

the meaning and purpose of Philosophy )

5
“ Philosophy is for those who are
willing to be disturbed with a
creative disturbance……Philosophy
is for those who still have the
capacity to WONDER….”

( Philosophy an introduction to the Art of Wondering by James

L. Christian, prelude. )

6
“ Philosopher can be best describe as one who loves truth
in its deepest meaning. This is in keeping with the literal
meaning of the word “Philosophy” as love of wisdom. The
study of Philosophy is a continual encounter, a dialogue
carried on in search of truth wherever it maybe found.
Philosophy can be termed as an inquiry which seeks to
encompass the whole of reality by understanding its most
basic causes and principle in so far as these are acceptable
to reason and experience. It is characterized as ‘beginning
in wonder and ends in mystery”.

( Reflections on Man by Jesse Mann et al. P2-4) 7

“ Philosophy of man is an overview on the nature,
activities and destiny of man. It attempts to asses
his place in and his relationship to the world.
Through such an overview, an understanding of
what man is and who he is will emerge. In some
respect, Philosophy of man constitutes a
metaphysics of man, for it is a probe of the deepest
causes and meaning of man”.

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

8
Some Themes of Philosophy of Man:
2. Man as Embodied Subjectivity.

3. Man as Being-in-the-World

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

Social
5. Man as Person and his crowning activity is
love which presupposes Justice.

9
Some Insights from these Themes in our Philosophy
of Education
 A Philosophy of Education must include
social aims.
 Our Educational Policies must aim at
specific personal and social values: of justice,
love, honesty.
 Total development is not just education of the
mind but also of the heart and we educate the
heart by being exemplars.
10
 What Does it mean to Philosophize?

1.0 We shall not begin with a definition of

Philosophy. Philosophy is easier to do than to
define.
1.1 At this stage, it is safe to say that we associate
philosophy with thinking.
1.2 Crucial element in thinking is insight.
2.0 Insight is seeing with the mind. E.g. insight into a
joke.

11
2.1 Two things to be considered regarding
insight:
a. the insight itself
b. what do I do with insight
2.2 I can analyze the insight., but if I am merely
enjoying the joke, analysis can kill my enjoyment,
but if I am to the joke to others, analysis can
deepen and clarify the original insight and help in
the effective delivery.

12
3.0 Another example: death of a grandfather at 110
years old. I listen to the story of my
grandfather in his youth, think of myself as full of
high spirits, dashing, popular, but
high spirits are not inexhaustible. Insight:
Generations of men start life full of vigor,
then wither away and die after they have given
life to their own sons.
3.1 Homer made a metaphor of this insight: “ As the
generations of leaves, so the
generations of men”.
13
 3.2 Metaphor sharpens the insight and fixes it in the mind.

3.3 Also, one portion of reality casts light on another: by

contemplating the fall and return of leaves, we
understand also the rhythm of the generations of men.

4.0 Another example: number 4 can be analyzed into

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

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

cars, abstracting the common and prescinding from the
individual characteristics car.
14
4.2 Abstraction is one of the tools for analysis of insights.
An abstract thought is a concept. An analysis by
abstraction is a conceptual analysis.

4.3 My insight into the generations of men can be analyzed

conceptually, but note that conceptual analysis can
desiccate an insight: the throbbing, tumultuous
generations of men become an abstract fund of energy
and high spirits. It is then necessary to return to the
original insight.

15
 5.0 Summary:

5.1 Insight is seeing with the mind: only you can do it. I
cannot see it for you but I can help you see it.
5.2 There are many ways of doing with insight. Some insights
are so deep they cannot be exhausted.
5.3 It takes insight to do something with insight, like the
metaphor of Homer.
5.4 Insight brings us to the very heart of reality, and reality is
so deep and unfathomable.

16
 Why do we Philosophize?
1.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.
1.1 Experience is the life of the self: dynamic inter-relation of self
and the others, be it things, human being, the environment, the
world grasped not objectively but from within.
1.2 Self is the “I” conscious of itself, present to itself.
1.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not “I”.

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

tension, disequilibrium, disharmony, incoherence.

3.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.

17
4.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.

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

and the others, be it things, human being, the environment, the
world grasped not objectively but from within.
4.2 Self is the “I” conscious of itself, present to itself.
4.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not “I”.

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

tension, disequilibrium, disharmony, incoherence.

6.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.

18
 C. Beginnings of Philosophizing (When
do we begin to Philosophize?)
1.0 Wonder: For Plato, the poet and the Philosopher are alike in that both
begin from
wonder.
2.0 Doubt can also impel man to ask Philosophical Questions. Descartes’
Philosophy started from doubting the existence of everything.
Adolescents also doubt their identity.
3.0 Limit Situations are inescapable realities which cannot be change but
only acknowledged e.g. failure, death of a beloved. We may not be
able to control them but we can control our response to them through
reflection. They provide opportunities and challenges for us to make
life meaningful. (existentialists)
4.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is to be unsure of one’s center ( Gabriel
Marcel) equivalent to Soren Keirkegaard’s “Angst”.
19
5.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is contrasted with
Curiosity. To be curious is to start from a fixed
external objects ( outside of me) which I have a
vague idea of. Metaphysical Uneasiness is beyond
the physical (external ) but more of internal.
6.0 Curiosity tends to become metaphysical
uneasiness as the object becomes part of me.
7.0 Philosophizing here begins from the inner
restlessness which is linked to the drive of
fullness.
8.0 Philosophical Questions ultimately can be reduced
to question of “WHO AM I?”
20
 6.1 Philosophical Inquiry is inquiry into the Coherence,
Sense of human life as totality, as a whole,
Comprehensive reality and ultimate (final) value. E.g. I
have a terminal case of stomach cancer; I am given
only three months to live, so I ask “ What is the
meaning of my Life?”
7.0 “Sens de la Vie”: “Sens” can mean the direction
of a river, the texture of a cloth, the opening of a
door, the meaning of a word. Likewise, my life
can have a direction, texture, opening
(possibilities), meaning.
21
 D. Philosophical Approaches to the
study of Man
1.0 Ancient Greek : Cosmocentric Approach
1.1 The Greek were concerned with the Nature and Order of the
Universe.
1.2 Man was part of the cosmos, a microcosm. So like the Universe,
Man is made up of Matter (body) and Form (soul).
1.3 Man must maintain the balance and unity with the cosmos.
2.0 Medieval ( Christian era: St. Augustine, St Thomas
Aquinas ) Theocentric Approach
2.1 Man is understood as from the point of view of God, as a creature
of God, made in His image and likeness, and therefore the apex
of His creation.
22
3.0 Modern ( Descartes, Kant) Anthropocentric Approach
3.1 Man is now understood in his own terms, but basically on reason,
thus rationalistic.

4.0 Contemporary Philosophies arose as a reaction against

Hegel.
4.1 One reaction is Marx who criticized Hegel’s geist, spirit, mind
and brought out his dialectical materialism.

4.2 Another reaction is Soren Kierkegaard who was against the

system of Hegel and emphasized the individual and his direct
relationship with God. Kierkegaard led the existentialist
movement which became popular after the two world wars.
23
 E. Existentialism
1.0 The father of Existentialism is a Danish
Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard ( 1813-1855 )
1.1 Three events in Kierkegaard’s life influence his
philosophy:
a. unhappy childhood, strict upbringing by his
father
b. break-up with the woman he loved
c. quarrel with a university professor
1.2 These events and his criticism of the rationalistic
Hegelian system led him to emphsize the individual
and feelings. 24
1.3 The aim of Kierkegaard is to awaken his people to the
true meaning of Christianity.

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

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

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

ditch.( a ) direct: pull him out from above which he may
refuse or he may bring you down. ( b ) indirect: to jump
into the ditch with him and lead him up.
25
1.4.2 example2 : two ways to help a jilted friend: a )
direct: tell him to forget the woman because there
are other women, in which case he may avoid you.
b ) indirect: sympathize and share the hurt with him
and gradually lead him to the realization that it’s not
the end of the world.

1.5. Kierkegaard chose the indirect way and saw

himself as another Socrates: The indirect way is the
Socratic Method.
26
1.6. Kierkegaard started from where the people were, the
aesthetic stage, the stage of pleasure, so he wrote his first
aesthetic works.

1.7. The next stage is the ethical stage, the stage of morality
( of good and evil )
with reason as the standard.

1.8 The highest stage is the religious, where the individual

stands in direct
immediate relation ( no intermediary ) with God.

1.8.1 Here, because God is infinite and man is finite, the27

individual is alone, in angst, in fear and trembling.
1.8.2 What comes here is faith, the individual’s
belief in God, going beyond reason.
1.8.3 The favorite example of Kierkegaard here is
Abraham who was asked by God to sacrifice his
son Isaac (by his wife Sarah) to test his faith. The
command was between God and Abraham alone,
cannot be mediated by others (Sarah would not
understand it), and to apply the ethical would be
a murder.

28
2.0 Existentialism is not a philosophical system but a
movement, because existentialists are against
systems.

2.1 There are many different existentialist philosophies, but

in general they can be grouped into two camps: Theistic
(those who believe in God) and Atheistic (those who do
not believe in God.

29
 Theistic Atheistic

Soren Kierkegaard Albert Camus

Karl Jaspers Jean Paul Sartre
Gabriel Marcel Maurice Merleau Ponty

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

30
2.2 In spite of their divergence, there are common features
of existentialist philosophies to label them as
existentialist.
2.3 First, existentialist emphasize man as an actor in
contrast to man as spectator.
2..3.1 Many existentialists used literature like drama, novel, short
story, to convey this idea.
2.4 Second, existentialists emphasize man as subject, in
contrast to man as object.
2.4.1 Being as Object is not simply being-as-known but known in
a certain way: conceptually, abstractly, scientifically, its
content does not depend on the knower. It is the given, pure
datum, impersonal, all surface, no depth, can be defined,
circumscribed.
31
2.4.1 Being as Subject is the original center, source of initiative,
inexhaustible. The “I” which transcends all determinations, unique,
the self, in plenitude, attainable only in the very act by which it
affirms itself.

2.4.2 Man is both Subject and Object, as can be shown in reflexive acts
(e.g I brush myself, I wash myself, I slap myself) where there is the
object-me(changing and divisible) and the subject-I (permanent and
indivisible).

2.4.3 The existentialists, however, while not denying the reality of man
as object, emphasize the Subjectivity of man, of man as unique,
irreducible, irreplaceable, unrepeatable being. E.g. as a passenger in
a crowded bus, I am treated like a baggage, but I am more than that.
32
 2.4.5 The subjective must not be confused with subjectivism or
being subjectivistic.
2.4.6 The subjective merely affirms the importance of man as
origin of meaning (in contrast to the emphasis of ancient &
medieval periods on truth)
e.g. God , not the object proven but God-for-me.
e.g. values both objective and subjective (value-for-
me)
2.5 Thirdly, existentialists stress man’s existence, man
as situatedness, which takes on different meaning
for each existentialist.
2.5.1 for Kierkegaard, existence is to be directly related to God in
fear and trembling. 33
2.5.2 For Heidegger, existence is Dasein, There-being, being
thrown into the world as self-project.
2.5.3 For Jaspers, to exist is not only to determine one’s own
being horizontally but also vertically, to realize oneself
before God.
2.5.4 For Marcel, esse est co-esse,to exist is to co-exist, to
participate in the life of the other.
2.5.5 For Sartre, to exist is to be free.
2.5.6 For Merleau-Ponty, to exist is to give meaning.
2.5.7 For Camus, to exist is to live in absurdity.

34
2.6 Fourthly, existentialists stress on freedom which means
differently for each existentialist.
2.6.1 For Kierkegaard, to be free is to move from
aesthetic stage to ethical to religious.
2.6.2 For Heidegger, to be free is to transcend oneself in
time.
2.6.3 For Sartre, to be free is to be absolutely determine
of oneself without God.
2.6.4 For Marcel, to be free is to say “yes” to Being, to
pass from having to being in love.

35
2.7 Fifth, Existentialists propagate authentic existence
versus inauthentic existence.
2.7.1 Inauthentic existence is living the impersonal “they” in the
crowd, in bad faith (half conscious, unreflective)e.g.
D’etranger of Camus, functionalized man of Marcel,
monologue of Buber.
2.7.2 Authentic existence is free, personal commitment to a
project, cause, truth, value. To live authentically is to be
response-able.
2.8 All existentialists make use of the
PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD which does not
explain deductively or inductively but simply describes
the experience of man as he actually lives it.
36
 I. PHENOMENOLOGY
1. Traditional study of philosophy begins with logic,
then metaphysics, then cosmology and ends with
philosophical psychology or philosophical
anthropology (philosophy of man)
1.1 Man defined by traditional scholastic philosophy as
rational animal, a composite of body of soul.
1.1.1 Under the aspect of body, man is like any other animal, a
substance, mortal, limited by time and space.
1.1.2 Under the aspect of soul, man is rational, free, immortal.
1.1.3 The soul is deduced from the behavior of man to think and
decide.
37
2. Our critique of the traditional definition of man is that (a) it
is dualistic; ( b) it looks at man more as an object, an
animal; (c) it proceeds from external to internal.
3. The phenomenological approach, on the other hand, is: (a)
holistic;
(b) It describes man from what is properly human; (c)
proceeds from internal to
external.
4. Phenomenology was started by Edmund Husserl
(1859-1938) whose aim was to arrive at “philosophy as a
rigorous science”
4.1 By “philosophy as a rigorous science” Husserl meant
“presuppositionless philosophy”, a philosophy with the
least number of presuppositions.
38
4.2.1 Unlike Descartes, Husserl was dissatisfied with the
sciences of his time because they start with a complex
presuppositions.
4.3.2 In particular, he was reacting against the naturalistic
psychology which treats mental activity as causally
conditioned by events of nature, in terms of S-R relationship
(stimulus-reaction). Presupposition here is that man is a
mechanistic animal.
5. So, Husserl wanted philosophy to be “science of ultimate
grounds” where the presuppositions are so basic and
primary that they cannot be reduced further.
6. How does one arrive at Philosophy? By transcending the
natural attitude.
39
 6.1 The natural attitude is the scientific attitude which was
predominant in Husserl’s time and carried to the
extreme to become scientistic.
6.2 The scientific attitude observes things, expresses their
workings in singular judgments, then by induction and
deduction, arrives at concrete result.
7. But this attitude contains a lot of assumptions:
7.1 It assumes that there is no need to ask how we know.
7.2 It assumes that the world (object) is out there, existing and
explainable in objective laws, while man the subject is
pure consciousness, clear to itself able to know the world
as it is.
7.3 It takes for granted the world-totality.
40
8. In short, the natural attitude looks at reality as
things, a “fact world”.
8.1The way of knowing in the natural attitude is
fragmented, partial, fixed, clear, precise,
manipulative, and there is no room for mystery. It
was moving away from the heart of reality.
9. So, the motto for Husserl and the Phenomenologists
was “back to things themselves !”
9.1 By “back to things Themselves” Husserl meant
the entire field of original experience.
41
9.2 The ultimate root of philosophy was not to
be found in a concept, nor in a principle, not in
Cogito.

9.3 Phenomenology attempts to go back to the

phenomenon, to that which presents itself to
man, to see things as they really are,
independent of any prejudice. Thus
phenomenology is the “Logos of the
Phenomenon”.
42
IMPORTANT STEPS

IN THE

PHENOMENOLOGICAL
METHOD
43
 EPOCHE
 Epoche literally means “bracketing” which Husserl
borrowed from Mathematics and applied to the
natural attitude.
 What I bracket in the Epoche is my natural attitude
towards the object I am investigating, my prejudice,
my clear and conceptual knowledge of it that is
unquestioned.
 When I bracket, I do not deny nor affirm but simply
hold in abeyance: I suspend judgment on it.
 Epoche is important in order to see the world with
“new eyes” and to return to the original experience
from where our conceptual natural attitude was
derived.
44
 EIDETIC REDUCTION
 Eidetic Reduction is one of the important reductions
in the phenomenological method.

“Reduction” is another mathematical term to refer to

the procedure by which we are placed in the
“transcendental sphere” the sphere in which we can
see things as they really are,independent of any
prejudice.

“Eidetic” is derived from “eidos” which means

essence. In eidetic reduction I reduce the experience
to its essence. 45
 EIDETIC REDUCTION
 I arrive at the essence of the experience by
starting out with an individual example, then
finding out what changes can be made without
ceasing to be what it is. That which I cannot
change without making the object cease to be
the thing it is, is the invariant, the eidos of the
experience

46
 EIDETIC REDUCTION
 For example, I am doing a phenomenology of
Love. I start bracketing my biases on love.
Then I reduce the object love to the
phenomenon of love. In eidetic reduction, I
begin with an example of a relationship of love
between two people. I change their age, race,
social status and all these do not matter in
love. What is it that I cannot change? Perhaps,
the unconditional giving of self to the other as
he is. This then forms part of the essence of 47
 Phenomenological
Transcendental Reduction
 Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction
reduces the experience further to the very activity of
my consciousness, to my loving, my seeing, my
hearing..etc.
 Here I now become conscious of the subject, the “I”
who must decide on the validity of the object.
 I now become aware of the subjective aspects of the
object when I inquire into the beliefs, feelings, desires
which shape the experience.
 The object is seen in relation to the subject and the
subject in relation to the object.
48
 Phenomenological
Transcendental Reduction
 In our example of love, maybe I see the
essence of love as giving of oneself to the
other because of my perspective as a lover. If
I take the perspective of the beloved, maybe
the essence is more receiving than giving. If I
take the perspective of a religious, maybe love
is seen as activity of God.

49
 It is the Phenomenological
Transcendental Reduction that
Edmund Husserl came up with
the main insight of
Phenomenology:
“Intentionality of
consciousness

50
 Intentionality of consciousness means
that consciousness is intentional, that
consciousness is always consciousness of
something other than consciousness
itself.
There is no object without a subject, and
no subject without an object. The
subject-of-the-object is called noesis; the
object-for-the-subject is called noema.
There is no world without man, and no
man without a world.
51
Gabriel Marcel uses a
Phenomenological Method less
technical than Husserl. He calls it

Secondary Reflection

52
 Primary Reflection
 The kind of reflection in which I place myself
outside the thing I am inquiring on. An
“ob-jectum” (“thrown infront”). It has nothing
top do with my self nor I have anything to do
with it.

53
 Secondary Reflection
 The kind of reflection in which I recognize
that I am part of the thing I am investigating ,
and therefore , my discussion is ‘sub-jective”
(“thrown beneath”). I have something to do
with it and It has something to do with me.
Because I participate in the thing, I cannot tear
it apart into a clear and fixed ideas; I have to
describe and bring to light its unique
wholeness in my concrete experience.
54
 Human Nature
1. Man as Intermediary
b. as being in the world
c. as being at the world
4. Man as Intersubjectivity
e. as being through others
f. as being with others
g. as being for others
8. Man as a Self Project
9. Man as being unto death
10. Man as being unto God 55
Three Basic Orientation of One’s
Existence
1. World
2. Others

3. God

“I exist as “Sentio Ergo Sum” ( “I feel

therefore I am”) is the indubitable touchtone
of one’s existence, it must be taken as
indissoluble unity: the “I” cannot be
separated from the “exist”, pertaining
essentially to sense experience.
56
56
 Marcel invokes an image, that of a child
coming up to him with shining eyes, saying:
“Here I am! What a Luck!. The statement of
the child cannot be separated from its act of
existing. This is in the word ‘exist’ or
‘existere’ which in Latin means “to stand
out,” or “to manifest”. The indubitable
touchtone of one’s existence is linked to kind
of exclamatory awareness of oneself, as in the
expression of the child ( the leaps , the
cries..etc.
57
 The immediacy of self awareness in the case
of the ADULTS maybe restrained, crusted
over by habits, compartmentalized life: it is
pretty certain, in fact, that we are are tending
to become bureaucrats not only with our
outward behaviors but in our relation with
ourselves, and because of bureaucracy we
interpose thicker and thicker screens between
ourselves and existence.

58
 This feeling that makes known my experience is what
Marcel calls: “SYMPATHETIC MEDIATION”
 The experience is what Marcel calls: “NON-
INTRUMENTAL COMMUNION”
 If we want to be faithful to the experience, we need to
use concept that points to this feeling:
“DIRECTIONAL CONCEPTS”
 The whole process can be fulfilled only if we inter
into “SECONDARY REFLECTION” and humbly
returned to the experienced reality of ordinary life.

59
 Reflection is rooted inexperience, but there
are two kinds:
Primary and secondary.
Primary Reflection breaks the unity of
experience and is the foundation of scientific
knowledge. This is equivalent to the Natural
Attitude in Husserl.
Secondary Reflection recuperates the unity of
original experience. It does not go against the
data of primary reflection but refuses to
accept it as final.

60
Example#1: Who am I?
Primary Reflection: I am so and so…,born on this
day…, in such a place…, with height and weight…
etc.. items on the I.D. card.
Secondary Reflection: I am more than the items
above.. I enter into my inner core.
Example#2: My Body
Primary Reflection: a body is like other bodies..,
detached from the “I” , the body examined by a
doctor, studied by medical students, or the body
sold by the prostitute.
Secondary Reflection: I am my body, I feel the pain
when my dentist pulls my tooth.
I feel a terrible feeling when I sell my
body( prostitute).

61
 SUMMARY
 Phenomenology as a Method is a method in
which the relation between the investigator
and the investigated object is considered to
belong essentially to the object itself.

 In cases where the object of investigation is

Human Being, phenomenology becomes the
Method in which all relevant items of research
are exclusively considered only with regard to
the totality of Human Being.
62
 MAN AS LIBERTY ( FREEDOM)
 I. Two extreme positions on the issue on
Human Freedom:
 B.F. Skinner: Man is Absolutely
determined.
 Jean Paul Sartre: Man is Absolutely Free.

 II. Middle position: Phenomenology of

Freedom of Maurice Merleou-
Ponty/Abraham Maslow
 III. Freedom and Person: Gabriel Marcel.63
 Two Types of Freedom: Pier Fransen;
Jose A. Cruz S.J.

 Freedom of Choice
 Fundamental Options
 Freedom and Responsibility:
Robert Johann S.J.
 Freedom and Justice
64
 B.F. SKINNER: MAN IS
ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED
 We begin our Phenomenology description of
Freedom by using EPOCHE, bracketing two extreme
positions on freedom: Absolute Determinism and
absolute Freedom.
 The behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner holds that
man is absolutely determined.
 1. Man’s behavior is shaped and determined (caused)
by external forces and stimuli:
 a. Genetic, biological and physical structure.
 b. Environmental structures: culture, national and
ecclesiastical ( Church )
 c. External forces and demands 65
 Our behavior, being conditioned by these factors, is
manipulable: man can be programmed like machine.
e.g. governmental, educational and propagandistic
techniques.

 Against Skinner, we hold that there other levels of

experience which cannot be explained by or reduced
to external factors and stimuli, such as:
 1. I can make myself aware of my biological and
physical limitations,
 2. I can question my own environmental structures,
revolt or validate them.
 3. I can achieve a distance from external demands
and forces: hesitate, reflect, deliberate and challenge
them. 66
 There are difficulties with Absolute
Determinism:
1. Explaining away self-questioning and self-
reflection is doing self- questioning and self-
reflection.
2. Not all causal motives are necessitating causes
because the goods that we face and
the motives we use are limited, conditioned
and mixed.
3. If the feeling of freedom is rejected, then no
basic human experience is trustworthy, which
would lead to total skepticism and inaction.
67
67
4. If the statement “man is absolutely
determined” is true, then the statement is
also determined, and the opposite “man is
absolutely free” would also be
determined, and so, there would be no
truth value anymore to the statement.
5. If Human Beings are manipulable like
machines, there would be no problem in
making the society just.
68
 JEAN PAUL SARTRE:
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM
 Jean Paul Sartre, in His early stage, holds
that man is absolutely Free.

 In His essay “Existentialism is Humanism”,

Sartre discusses his position by stating that
with man, “Existence precedes essence” ( He
develops absolute freedom in metaphysical
terms in his book “Being and Nothingness)
69
 Man first exists and then creates his own
essence.
 There is no pre-existing essence that man has
to conform when he exists.
 There is no God, because if there is God, He
would be a creator and essence would exist
first before existence, thus man would be
determined.
 “Man is what he is not (yet), and he is not
what he is “ because he can be what he wants
to be. 70
 Man cannot be free in some things only
and not free in others; he is absolutely
free or not at all.
 1. Objection: to Sartre: How can you say
I am absolutely free when I am not free to
be born in such in such a place, parents, ,
day…….etc.
 2. Answer of Sartre: You can Always live
as if you were not born in such and such a
place, parents, day…….etc. 71
 2. Objection to Sartre: How can you say
I am absolutely free when I cannot climb
a big rock or pass through it? So I am
limited.

 2. Answer of Sartre: The rock is the

obstacle to your freedom only because
you freely want to climb or pass through
it.
72
 For Sartre: Freedom is a negation, a
negating power of consciousness.
 In interpersonal relationship, this means
reducing the other person to an object,
described as: “SARTREAN STARE”.
 The other person, because he is also free,
also reduces me to an object. So for
Sartre: “HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE”
( from the Play “NO EXIT” )
73
 Structured Freedom
Abraham Maslow
 If man is free, his freedom involves both
realms: historicity/given structure and
transcendence in free questioning
 Freedom and structures are complementaries
than contradictories
 Structure is fundamental to all human growth,
evolution and process
 Structures are the offerings of the human
world to which I come:
74
historicity,environment, etc.
 Continue….
 Structure is also the internal constitution of
being a man with human potentialities: basis
for my being a questioning self.
 My own freely created life project is also a
structure, that is the structure of being a man
 Freedom is operative on all levels: operative
not as a force against structure but as a force
emerging from structure and merging with
structure inorder to further actualize human
potentials 75
 Continue…
 Man, therefore is neither absolutely free nor
absolutely determined
 Man is freedom within structure

Final words on freedom

The problem is not proving the freedom of the
will but rather it is in accepting its true
meaning and consequences
76
 Continue…
 In the exercise of freedom, we are definitely a
and ultimately alone: As Sartre says “ we are
condemned to be free.”
 Only we can possess ourselves: No one else
can do it for us.
 Our choices are irrevocable, since the present
moment is never repeated. We cannot undo
what we have chosen.
 We can only summon ourselves to manage
77
making new choices
 Continue…
 I must freely create a life-project which is
myself
 I alone am accountable
 Freedom is both terrible and beautiful: a two-
edged sword
 With freedom, he can make choices but creates
anxiety and uncertainty( terrible)
 With freedom he can know himself and be in
control of his destiny(beautiful) 78
 Continue…

 However his destiny and meaning is other-

oriented, open in his potentialities to know and
love
 As a result, man’s meaning is not only to
possess himself freely
 His identity is not fully achieved until, having
possessed himself, he gives himself to the
other.
79
 MAURICE MERLEAU-PONTY:
SITUATED FREEDOM
 Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his last chapter of
the phenomenology of perception, criticizes
Sartrean Absolute Freedom and holds the
middle position of structure freedom.
 For Merleau-Ponty, if freedom is absolute,
always and everywhere present, then
freedom is impossible and nowhere.
 There would be no distinction between
freedom and unfreedom. E.g. The slave in
chains is just then as free as the one who
revolts and breaks his chains. We are free
when we control our situation as well as we
are powerless. 80
 Such freedom as Sartre’s cannot embody
itself in any form of existence, because
once freedom has realized something, we
have to say at once that it lies outside its
so-called embodiments.
 In such kind of freedom, it is difficult to
speak of choice, because choice implies
value, and seeing values is impossible
from the standpoint of a freedom which
transcends all situations.
81
 For Merleau-Ponty, our freedom is
SITUATED FREEDOM.
 Freedom is interwoven with a field of
existence. Our choices are not made from
absolute zero, but from this field of
meanings.
 Outside myself, there is no limit to my
freedom, but in myself, there are limits.
82
 We have to make distinction between :
 1.Explicit Intention: I plan to climb the
mountain
 2. General Intention: Whether I plan to climb
the mountain or not, it appears high to me.
 Underneath me is a Natural “I”, which does
not give up earthly situation and from which is
based my plans.
 In so far as I have hands, feet, body… I bear
intentions which do not depend on my
freedom but which I find myself in.
83
 I find myself in a world of meanings. E.g. I
cannot structure the data of perception in
arbitrary fashion, like: habits, tiredness;
historical situation.
 It is true that I can change habits or I
transcend Facticity, but I can only do so from
these standpoints.
 A good example of situated freedom is a
revolution: it is neither purely determined nor
completely free.

84
GABRIEL MARCEL: FREEDOM AND
THE PERSON
 Gabriel Marcel understands freedom in
relation to PERSON.
 The Person is characterized by
DISPONSABILITY, AVAILABILITY, in
contrast to the EGO which is closed.
 Out in existence as an EGO, having freedom
and grow to BEING a Person.
 Marcel’s Philosophy can be systematized in
terms of HAVING and BEING: having and
being are two realms of life.
85
 HAVING pertains to things, external to me, and
therefore autonomous (independent of me)
 1. Things do not commune with me, are not capable
of participation, closed and opaque, quantifiable and
exhaustible.
 2 . The life of Having therefore is a life of
instrumental relationship.
 3. Having is the realm of problem. A problem is
something to be solved but apart of me, the subject.
 4. Having is also applicable not only to things but
also to ideas, fellowman, faith. I can have my ideas,
posses other people, have my religion. Here I treat
my ideas, other people, religion as my possessions,
not open for sharing with others.
86
 BEING, on the other hand, pertains to person, open
to others, able to participate, creative, non-
conceptualizable, a plenitude.
 1. The life of BEING is the life of communion.
 2. The realm of BEING is the realm of MYSTERY.
A mystery is a problem that encroaches on the
subject, that is part of me.
 3. BEING is also applicable not only to persons but
also to things (art), ideas, faith. I am my painting; I
am my ideas, I am my faith. Here my art, ideas,
religion are part of me which I can share to others.
87
 FREEDOM for Marcel belongs to the realm of
BEING, because freedom is not distinct from us,
not a possession. Freedom is a mystery not a
problem.
 1. A thing possessed may be used or neglected by
the owner without losing its character, but with
freedom, when I deny, abused or betray it, it loses
its character as freedom.
 2. Freedom then, as belonging to the realm of
Being, freedom breaks the confines of having to
affirm my being which is essentially openness,
participation, creative belonging with other beings
and with fullness of BEING ITSELF.
88
 Man is gifted with freedom ( freedom as
fact ), and that is why he experiences a lack,
but which is really an exigency of BEING.
 1. In an answer to this appeal of BEING, man
either fulfills or betray his freedom.
 2. To fulfill freedom is to affirm, to be in
communion with others, with BEING.
 3. Therefore, freedom as a fact points to
freedom as VALUE. I am free in order to
become free (freedom as achievement), to
become fully a person.
89
 TWO KINDS OF FREEDOM

 1. FREEDOM OF CHOICE (Horizontal

Freedom)
 2. FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS (Vertical
Freedom)
 1.1 Our first and commonly understood
experience of freedom is the ability to choose,
goods, e.g. I choose to study instead of
watching a movie, I choose to buy a cheap pair
of shoes instead of an expensive one, because I
am supporting my siblings education. 90
 But if we reflect deeper, our choice implies a prior
or may lead to a preference of VALUES. When I
choose to study instead of playing, I value learning
more than pleasure. When I choose to buy a cheap
pair of shoes, I value helping my sister/brother more
than my comfort.
 2.1 This Freedom is called FUNDAMENTAL
OPTIONS, because it is our general direction or
orientation in life, it reflects our value in life.
 2.2 It is called VERTICAL FREEDOM, because
values form a hierarchy; some values are higher than
others.
 2.3 For the German Phenomenologist Max Scheler,
preferring and realizing Higher Values is LOVE, and
preferring and realizing lower values is hatred or
egoism. 91
 In the ultimate analysis, there are Two
Fundamental Options: LOVE and EGOISM.
 1. It is LOVE which makes me a PERSON,
which makes me truly FREE.
 2. FREEDOM OF CHOICE and
FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS are interrelated:
Our Choices shape our Fundamental Options,
and our Fundamental Options is exercised and
concretized in our particular choices.

92
 FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

 These Two Types of Freedom can be seen in

the corollary of Freedom which is
RESPONSIBILITY. Responsibility is the
other side of Freedom.
 Just as there are two kinds of Freedom, there
are also two meanings of Responsibility.
 1. The First Meaning of Responsibility
corresponds to the First Type of Freedom,
Free Choice , namely ACCOUNTABILITY.
93
 I am accountable for an action that is free,
whose source is the “I”, I acted on my own, I
decided on my own. I am free from external
constraints.
 Being Responsible, Accountable for my
action, however, does not necessarily make me
a responsible person. Here we encounter a
second meaning of responsibility
corresponding to the second type of freedom:
RESPONSE-ABILITY.
94
 RESPONSE-ABILITY means the ability to give an
account, the ability to justify my action as truly
responsive to the objective demands of the situation.
 1. A response that meets the objective demands of the
situation is a response that meets the demand of
JUSTICE.
 2. A responsible action then from a RESPONSE-
ABLE person requires putting the Other in the
forefront in place of myself. I am free from internal
constraints, like egoism and whims (arbitrariness).
 3. Greater Freedom then is not just being able to do
what I want to do but being able to do and wanting to
do what the situation objectively (versus subjectively)
oblige me to do.
95
 FREEDOM AND JUSTICE
 The relation between FREEDOM and JUSTICE can
be seen when we take into consideration the
network of relationships with FELLOW HUMAN
BEINGS and the goods intended by Freedom.
 JUSTICE is giving what is due to the other.
 When we choose goods (things, money, political
power…etc.), we must consider that they are finite
and exhaustible, and that the other also needs them.
 Absolute Love for finite goods leads to corruption,
in the object and in the subject.
96
 If the Human Being is to keep his Freedom, He must
assess the real needs with respect to what is available
around his world and the equally real needs of his
fellowman.
 This requires an objective order of Values, like
balancing measurement, LIBRA.
 What is due to the other is all that he needs to
preserve and enhance his dignity as a Human Being.
 We are obligated to give to the other what the other
needs to enhance his Dignity.
 His Dignity includes His Being and becoming Free.
97
 But we are obliged to give only what we can give
within the limited matrix of possibilities.
 Freedom then conditions Justice, and Justice is a
condition of Freedom.
 Freedom conditions justice, because giving what is
due to the other means allowing him to use his talents
to fulfill his Humanity, giving him Freedom. So, to
violate the Freedom of the other is to deny him
Justice.
 Justice is a condition of freedom, because I can only
use my Freedom for the promotion of Justice, of what
is due to the Human Being. In the exercise of my
Freedom, I must observe Justice so that the resources
of fellow Human Beings and the World of nature are
not exhausted and totally lost, otherwise there will be
no more goods to choose from.
98
 This relationship of Freedom and Justice is
applicable to society.
 In a society, there must be a balance of
Freedom and Justice.
 This means that there must be structural order
in society such that higher Values are not
subordinated to lower values.
 The social structure must be such that
exchange of economic goods and distribution
of political power is geared towards
enhancement of the Human Being.
99
 The practical norm to follow for that ideal is :
“ to each according to his needs
 ( Acts 2:45 )….. from each according to his
means ( Acts 11:29 ).
 In case of conflict between Freedom and
Justice, the use of Violence must be avoided.
Instead structure for deliberations are needed.
People must be able to participate is Dialogue
to settle their differences.

100
 INTERSUBJECTIVITY ( MAN
AND FELLOWMAN )
 I. DIALOGUE
 The noted Jewish Philosopher on dialogue,
Martin Buber, makes a distinction between the
HUMAN and INTERHUMAN.
 1.1 The Social is the life of the group of
people bound together by common
experiences and reactions; in short, a group
existence.
101
 Continue…
 1.2 The Interhuman is the life between
persons, the interpersonal, the life of dialogue,
The “I-THOU”.
 1.3 For example, Buber joins a procession for
the sake of a comrade (social ), then suddenly
he sees someone in the café he had befriended
a day before ( Interhuman ).
 1.4. The Interhuman can happen to persons
with opposing views, like a boxer in the
boxing match. 102
 Continue…
 “I-THOU” ( dialogue ) is to be distinguished
from “I-IT” ( monologue )
 2.1One way of distinguishing dialogue from
monologue is to describe the obstacles to
dialogue which would be the characteristics of
monologue.
 We must note first that our life with other
persons is in reality never pure dialogue nor
pure monologue but a mixture. It is the
question of which predominates 103
 Continue…
 3.1 The first obstacle to dialogue
is”SEEMING”, in contrast to “BEING”.
 3.1.1 Seeming proceeds from what one wishes
to seem. I approach the other from what I want
to impress on the other.
 3.1.2 The look of seeming is “made-up”,
artificial.
 3.1.3 Being proceeds from what one really is. I
approach the other from what I really am, not
104
wanting to impress on the other.
 Continue…
 3.1.4 The look of Being is spontaneous,
without reserve, natural.
 3.1.5The Seeming that is an obstacle to
dialogue must be distinguished from the
“Genuine Seeming” of an actor who is playing
a role and of a lad who imitates a heroic
model.

105
 Continue…
 3.1.6 Seeming that attacks the “I-THOU” is a
lie in relation to existence, not a lie in relation
to particular facts.
 3.1.7 For example: Two men , Peter and Paul, whose
lives are dominated by seeming:
 Peter as he wants to appear to Paul, Paul as He
wants to appear to Peter,
 Peter as he actually appear to Paul, Paul as he
actually appears peter,
 Peter as He appears to Himself, Paul as He
appears to himself.
106
 Six appearances and two bodily beings!!!
 Continue…
 3.1.8 In “I-THOU”, persons communicate to each
other as they are, in Truth.
 3.1.9 Objection to Buber: Is it not natural for man to
seem.
 Answer of Buber: No, what is natural for man is
to seek confirmation of his being, a
 “yes” from the other for who he is, but this is
difficult and so he resorts to seeming
 because seeming is easier.
 3.2 The second obstacle to dialogue is speechifying,
107
in contrast to personal making present.
 Continue…
 3.2.1 Speechifying is talking past one another.
For Sartre, this is the impassable walls
between partners in conversation. Most
conversations today are really monologues.
 3.2.2In dialogue, on the other hand, I
personally make present the other as the very
one he is, I become aware of Him, that he is
different from me, unique, maybe even with
opposing views.
108
 Continue…
 3.2.3 To be aware of a person is different from becoming
aware of a thing or animal. It is to perceive his
wholeness, determined by spirit. It is to perceive his
dynamic center.
 3.2.4 In our time, we have the following tendencies that
make dialogue difficult:
 Analytical: We break the person into parts.
 Reductive: We reduce the richness of a person to a
schema, structure, concept..
 Deriving: We derive the person from a formula..
 Thus: the Mystery of a Person is Leveled
109
down.
 Continue…
 3.3. The third obstacle to dialogue is
IMPOSITION, in contrast to UNFOLDING.
 3.3.1 Imposition is interaction between
persons, they influence one another. But there
are two basic ways to influence another:
Imposition and Unfolding.
 3.3.2 Imposition is dictating my own opinion,
attitude, myself on the other.
110
 Continue…
 3.3.3 Unfolding, on the other hand, is finding
in the other the disposition towards what I
myself recognized as true good and beautiful.
If it is true, good and beautiful, it must also be
alive in the other person in his own unique
way. All I have to do in dialogue is to bring
him to see it for himself.

111
 Continue…
 3.3.4 A typical example of imposition is the
propagandist. The propagandist is not
concerned with the unique person he wants to
influence but with certain qualities of the
person that he can manipulate and exploit to
win the other to his side. He is concerned
simply with more members, more followers.
Political methods are mostly winning power
over the other by depersonalizing him.
112
 Continue…
 3.3.5 A Typical example of unfolding is the
Educator. The Educator cares for his students
as unique, singular, individual. He sees each as
capable of freely actualizing himself. What is
right is established in each as a seed in a
unique personal way. He does not impose.
 3.3.6 The educator trust in the efficacy of what
is right. The propagandist does not believe in
the efficacy of his cause, so he must use
special methods like the media. 113
 Continue…
 3.3.7 This idea of Buber has influenced a
Theologian of Liberation, Paolo Friere, who
wrote the Pedagogy of the oppressed.
According to him there are two ways of
teaching:
 banking Method: a teacher “deposits”
information in his students’ minds and he
“withdraws” it during examinations.

114
 Continue…
 Dialogical Methods: the teacher teaches by
learning from his students their unique
situation, and from there, he unfolds what is
right. Both the teacher and students are
responsible to what is true, good and beautiful.
 To summarize, genuine dialogue is turning to
the partner in all truth.

115
 Continue…
 4.1 To turn to the other in all truth also means
imagining the real, accepting the wholeness of
the other, including his real potentialities and
the truth of what he cannot say.
 4.2 To confirm the other does not mean
approval. Even if I disagree with him, I can
accept him as my partner in genuine dialogue;
I affirm him as a person.

116
 Continue…
 4.3 Further, for genuine dialogue to arise,
every participant must bring himself to it. He
must be willing to say what is really in his
mind about the subject matter.
 4.3.1 This is different from unreserved
speech, where I just talk and talk.
 4.4.2 Silence can also be dialogue. Words
sometimes are the source of misunderstanding
(Zen Buddhism)
117
 LOVE
Introductory Note: There are many
kinds of Love ( Love of Friendship,
Marital Love..etc.).

Our Phenomenology of Love here is

not a description of a particular kind
of Love but of love in general between
persons
118
We begin our phenomenology of love
by first using epoche, braketing the
popular notion of Love as a pleasant
sensation, as something one “ falls
into “.
1. According to Erich Fromn in his
book, “ The Art of Loving” , Love is an
art that requires knowledge and effort.
2. Erich Fromn cites three reasons for
this wrong popular notion of Love as
“Falling in Love”.
119
3.The first reason is that now a days the
problem is stressed on “being loved” rather
than “on loving”. Note the proliferation of
books on “how to win friends and influence
people”, “how to be attractive”.
4.The second reason is that nowadays the
problem is focused on the “object” rather
than the “Faculty”. Nowadays people think
that to love is easy but finding the right
person to love or be loved is difficult. So
love is reduced to sales and follow the fad
of the times.

120
5.The third reason is
the confusion between
the initial state of
“falling-in-love” and
the “permanent state
of being-in-love”.

121
6.The experience of love starts
from the experience of
“Loneliness”

6.1. Loneliness is one of the basic

experience of the human being
because of “self awareness”.

122
 7. Thrown out of the situation which
was definite and secure into a
situation which is indefinite,
uncertain, open, the human being
experiences separation.
8. This experience of separation is
painful and is the source of shame,
guilt and anxiety.
9. There is then the deep need in
man to overcome loneliness and to
find “at-onement”.
123
9. Some answers to this problem are
the following:

A. Orgiastic States: trance induced by

drugs, rituals, sexual orgasm, alcohol
etc. The characteristic of this states
are: violent, intense, involving the
total personality, but transitory
and periodical. They are addictive

124
B. Conformity with groups: joining a
party or organization. The
characteristics of these groups are
calm, routine dictated. In our society
today, we equate “equality” with
sameness rather than “oneness”
where differences are respected
C. Creative Activity: a productive work
which I plan, produce and see the
result, which is difficult nowadays.
125
10. All the above are not
interpersonal.
11. Love is the answer of Loneliness,
but Love can be immature.
12.Immature love is symbiotic union
where the persons lose their
individuality. The following are
immature forms of Love:
A. Biological: the pregnant mother
and the fetus: both live together.

126
B. Psychic: two bodies are
independent but the same
attachment psychologically.
C. Passive: masochism. The
masochist submits himself to
another.
D. Active: sadism. The sadist is
dependent on the submissiveness of
the masochist.

127
13. Loneliness ends when the loving
encounter begins, when the person
finds or is found by another.
14. The loving encounter is a meeting
of persons.
15. The meeting of persons involves
an “I-Thou communication”.
16. This meeting of persons happens
when two persons are free to be
themselves yet choose to share
themselves.
128
18. This meeting of persons is not
simply a bumping into each other, nor
an exchange of pleasant remarks,
although this can be an embodiments
of a deeper meaning.
19. This meeting of persons can
happen in groups of common
commitments although social groups
can impose roles.

129
 20. The loving encounter
presupposes the appeal of the other
to my subjectivity.
21. The appeal of the other is
embodied in a word, gesture or
glance.
22.The appeal of the other is an
invitation to transcend myself, to
break away from my
occupation with the self.

130
23. I can ignore the causal remark of
the other as a sign for the meeting.
24. My self-centeredness makes it
difficult for me to understand the
other’s appeal to me.
25. I need more than eyes to see the
reality of the other, to see his
goodness and value.

131
26. I need an attitude that has broken
away from self –preoccupation. If I am
absorbed in myself, I will not
understand the other’s appeal but will
just excuse myself.
27.I must get out of the role I am
accustomed to play in my daily life to
understand the other’s appeal.

132
 28. What is the appeal of the other?
It is not the corporeal or spiritual
attractive qualities of the other.

29. Qualities can only give rise to

enamoredness, a desire to be with
the other, but love is the firm will to
be for the other.

133
30. Once the qualities ceases to be
attractive, then love ceases.
31. Also, the person is more than his
facticity.

32. The appeal is not any explicit

request, because the other may go
away dissatisfied, because my heart
was not in fulfillment of his request.

33. The other’s appeal is HIMSELF.

134
34. The call of the other is his subjectivity:
“be with me, participate in my subjectivity”.
The other person is himself a request.

35. The appeal of the other makes it

possible for me to liberate myself from
myself.

36. The appeal reveals to me an entirely

new dimension of existence: that myself
realization maybe a destiny-for-you. “
Because of you , I understand the
meaninglessness of my egoism”.
135
37. What is my reply to the other’s
appeal? It is not the outpouring of my
qualities to the other.
38. Compatibility of Qualities is not
necessary in love.
39. Neither is my reply the satisfaction
of his request or desire.
40. Sometimes refusal to grant his
request or desire maybe the way of
loving him if granting it will do him
harm.
136
41 . My reply of the other’s appeal is
MYSELF.

42. As a subject, the other is free to

give meaning and new dimension to
his life.

43. His appeal then to me is an

invitation to will his subjectivity, to
consent to his freedom, to accept,
support and share it.
137
44. My reply then is willing the other’s
free self realization, his destiny, his
happiness. It is like saying: “I want you
become what you want to be . I want you
to realize your happiness freely.
45. This reply is effective.
46. Love is not only saying but doing,
since the other person is not a
disembodied subject, to love him implies
that I will his bodily being, that I care for
his body, his world,
his total well being.

138
47. Willing the happiness of the other
implies I have an awareness, a
personal
knowledge of his destiny.
48.1 Love is not only saying but
doing, since the other person is not a
disembodied subject, to love him
implies that I will his bodily being, that
I care for his body, his world,
his total well being.

139
49. My Love will open possibilities for
him but also close others, those that
will hamper his self realization.
50. I can be mistaken in what I think
will make other happy or I may
impose own concept of happiness so
Love requires RESPECT for the
OTHERNESS of the other.
51. This respect the other
necessitates PATIENCE, because the
rhythm of growth of the other maybe
different from mine. 140
52. Patience is harmonizing my
rhythm with the other’s, like melody or
an orchestra.
53. Is love concerned only with the
other and not at all myself? No,
because in love I am concerned also
with myself.
54. This does not mean to be loved
but in the sense that in love, I place
the limitless trust in the other, thus
delivering myself to Him.
141
55. This TRUST, this defenselessness,
is a CALL upon the love of the beloved,
to accept my offer of myself.

56. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is

not to will to draw advantage from the
affection for the other.
57. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is
not compelling, dominating or possessing
the other. Love wants the other’s freedom in
that the other himself choose this safe way
and avoid that dangerous path.
142
58. There is indeed that element of
SACRIFICE in loving the other which is often
(mis)understood as loss of self.
59. I renounce motive of promoting myself,
abandoning my egoism.
60. But this does not mean loss of self. On
the contrary, in loving the other I need to
love myself, and in loving the other I come
to fulfill myself.
61. I need to love myself first in loving the
other because in loving I offer myself as a
GIFT to the other, so the gift has to be
valuable to me first, otherwise I am giving a
garbage to the other. 143
62. This loving myself takes the form
of being-loved: I am loved by the
other.
63. I come to fulfill myself in loving
the other because when my gift of self
is accepted, the value is confirmed by
the beloved, and I experience the joy
of giving in the process I also receive.
64. Thus, there exist in loving the
other the desire to be loved in return.
But this desire is never a motive in
loving the other. 144
The primary motive in LOVE is the YOU-
FOR-WHOM-I-CARE.
65. The “you” is not the “he” or “she” I talk
about.
66. The “you” is not just another self. ( “not
just a rose among the roses” Little Prince)
67. The you is discovered by the lover
himself, not with the eyes nor with the mind
but with the heart.(“It is only with the heart
that one can see rightly; what is essential is
invisible to the eyes” Little Prince.) “I love
you because you are beautiful and lovable,
and you are beautiful and lovable because
you are you”.
145
68. Since the you is another subjectivity, He
is free to accept or reject my offer of self.
Love is a risk.
69. What if the other does not reciprocate
my love?
70. The rejection of the beloved can be a
test of how authentic my love is.
71. If I persist in loving the other in spite of
the pain, then my love is truly selfless.
72. The experience of rejection can be an
opportunity for me to examine myself, for
self-reparation, for emptying myself ,
allowing room for development.
146
73. when love is reciprocated, love becomes
fruitful, Love becomes creative.

74. Loving although it presupposes knowing,

it is different from knowing.

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

I will the other’s free self realization, I
somehow “make” the other be.

76. In any encounter, there is a “making”

of the other: e.g. the teacher makes the
student a student; the student makes the
teacher a teacher.
147
77. In loving encounter, the making of the
other is not causalistic because love involves
two freedoms.
78. To understand the creativity of love, let
us do a phenomenology of being-loved.
79. When I am loved, I experience a feeling
of joy and sense of security.
80. I feel joy because I am accepted as
myself and a value to the lover. I feel free
to be just myself and what I can become.
81. I feel secure because the other
participates in my subjectivitry, I no longer
walk alone in the world.
148
82. So, What is created in love is “we”.

83. Together with the “we” is also a

“new-world”—our world, one world.

“ My life is monotonous, he said, I hunt

chickens; men hunt me. All chickens are just
alike. And , in consequence, I am a little bored.
But if you tame me, it will be as if the sun came
to shine in my life. I shall know the sound of a
step that will be different from all others. Other
steps send me hurrying back underneath the
ground 149
Yours will call me, like music, out of burrow.
And then look: you see the grain-fields down
yonder? I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no use
to me. The wheat-fields have nothing to say to
me. And that is sad. But you have the hair that
is the color of gold. Think how wonderful that
will be when you have tamed me! The grain,
which is also golden, will bring me back the
thought of you. And I shall love to listen to the
wind in the wheat….” The Fox to the
Little Prince
150
84. Again, the creative influence of the lover
is not causalistic because the beloved must
freely accept the offer of the lover.
85. Only when the beloved says “yes” will
the love becomes fruitful,: e.g. the teacher’s
love is fruitful only when student accepts
freely the education.
86. The “we” created in love is a union of
persons and their worlds. Therefore, they do
not lose their identities.
87. In the union of things, the elements lose
their identities.
151
88. In love, a paradox exists: The “I”
becomes more an “I” and the “YOU”
becomes more of Himself.
89. We can clarify and deepen this
paradox in love by describing the
nature of love as a “Gift of Self”.
90. A gift is “something” I cause
another to posses which hitherto I
posses myself, a giver.
91. The other has no strict right to
own the gift.
152
92. The giving is disinterested,
unconditional: There is no “string attached”
to the giving. I do not givein order to get
something in return; otherwise the giving is
an exchange or selling.
93. In love, the giving is not a giving up in
the sense of being deprived of something
because the self is not a thing that when
given no longer belongs to the giver but to
the given.
94 Nor the giving in love coming from a
marketing character because I do not give
in order to get something in return.
153
95. The giving in love is also not of the
virtuous character. I dot give in order to feel
good.
96. Why do I give myself in love? Because I
expereince a certain bounty, richness, value
in me.
97. I can express this disinterested giving of
self to the other as other in the giving of
sex, material things…. But when I do so, the
thing becomes unique because it has
become a concrete but limited embodiment
of myself.
154
98. To give myself means to give my
will, my ideas, my feelings, my
experiences to the other--- all that is
alive in me.
99. Why do I love this particular
other? Because you are lovable, you
are lovable because you are you.
100. The value of the other is his
being unique self. Therefore, since
every person is unique, everyone is
lovable.
155
101. If I am capable of loving this
particular person for what he is, I
am also capable of loving the
others for what they are.
102. From this nature of Love as
disinterested giving of oneself to
the other as other, we can derive
other essential characteristics of
love.

156
103. Love is Historical because the
other is a concrete particular person
with history.
104. I do not love abstract Humanity,
but concrete persons.
105. I do not love ideal persons, nor
do I love in order to change or
improve the other. e.g the friends of
Jesus, His Apostles, were not ideal
people.

157
106. We always associate the person
we love with concrete places, things,
events: like songs, e.g. In the Gospel
of St. John, The old St John recounts
his first meeting with Jesus and ends
that account with “It was about four
o’clock in the afternoon”(John1:39)

158
When friendship is breaking down, we want
to reconcile, we recall the the things we did
together:

“You are beautiful, but you are empty, he went on. One could
not die for you. To be sure, an ordinary passer-by would think
that my rose looked just you—the rose that belongs to me. But
in herself alone she is more important than the hundrds of you
other roses: because it is she that I have watered; Because it is
she that I have sheltered behind the screen; because it is for her
that I have killed the caterpillars(except the two or three that we
saved to become butterflies); because it is she that I have
listened to, when she grumbled, or boasted, or even sometimes
when she said nothing. Because she is my rose….” The Little
Prince in passing by a garden of roses.
159
107. In Love, I do not surrender my
liberty to the other, I do not become a
slave to the other. The wife’s
submission to her husband is done in
freedom in recognition of his position
in the family.
108. Rather, in Love two freedoms
become one and each becomes more
free.

160
109. The union of several freedoms in
love results in a community, which is
different from a society. In
community, persons are free to be
themselves.
110. Persons are Equal in Love
because persons are free.
111. The equality in love is the
equality of being, not of having.
161
112. Love is Total because the person
in love is indivisible. I do not say, “you
are my friend only insofar as you are
my colleague”.
113. Love is Eternal because love is
not given only for a limited period of
time.
114. Love is Sacred because persons
in love are valuable in themselves.

162
 MAX SCHELER’S PENOMENOLOGY
OF LOVE
 The most important sphere in a human
being’s life is the heart.
 The heart is the core and the essence.
 The heart is destined to love; the human
person is destined to love.
 Loving is the most fundamental act of the
human person.
 Loving is the primordial act.
 The human being is first and foremost a
being who loves
163
163
 WHAT LOVE IS NOT

 Love is not benevolence.

 When one loves, it is not necessary
that one seeks the material benefit
of its object.
 When loving non-persons, for
example, one does not need to be
benevolent to the object of the
loving act. E.g. Loving God, nature,
art, career.
164
 Loving persons, on the other hand,
coupled with benevolence implies
condescension and distance.
 Benevolence makes an effort
towards the well-being of the other,
to realize something in the other.
 Love exerts no effort to do
something in the object loved.
 Love is not a fellow feeling
 Fellow feeling is value blind.
165
 O can fellow feel for a person we do
not love e.g. one can fellow feel for a
person’s joy over his or his rival’s
misfortune but when one loves, one
would see that this is not in line with
one’s higher possibilities of being.
 Love is not a feeling.
 Feeling is passive-rweceptive and
reactive.
 Malebranche: we do not necessarily
love a fruit that gives the feeling of
pleasure? 166
 Even if love is not a fellow feeling,
one fellow feels for a person when
one loves that person.
 Fellow feeling is founded on love.
 Fellow feeling varies in the measure
and depth of love.
 Love is not the same as feeling
states.
 Feeling state change, love endures.
 Love does not alter.
167
 Love is the cause of feeling states,
not feeling states causing love.
 There is no such thing as falling out
of love.
 One does not love for limited periods
of time.
 Love is not the same as preference
and rejection of values (values
apprehension or judgments)

168
 One can feel something of positive
value without loving the object
possessing that value e.e. Respect
for a person- respect is directed
towards a value of a person that we
respect.
 Respect necessitates a value
judgment which entails a certain
detachment; this absent in love.
 Love is not directed towards a value
but to objects possessing that value.
169
 Preference and rejection as value
apprehension are founded on love.
 Love is a movement-higher values
can flash forth and be preferred.
 Love is a primitive and immediate
mode of emotional response to the
core of persons and objects.
 One does not apprehend a value first
and then love.

170
 It is possible for a person and object
to fulfill our preconceived preferred
values but we still do not love them.
 But the valuations that we give are
never enough for justifying our love.
 Most people find it unreasonable to
apply conceptual categories of
valuations to the objects that we
love e.g. Judging a loved one’s letter
because of the style and grammar.
171
 Love is not blind.
 Misconception because of the
primitiveness of love and the
adequacy reasons.
 Love has an evidence of its own
which is not strictly judged by reason
 Scheler says: “Love sees something
other in values, high or low, than
that which the eye of reason can
discern.”

172
 The beloved has its own worth. The
beloved is reason enough for the
lover.
 Blaise Paschal says: “The heart itself
has its own reasons which reason
itself does not know.’
 Love is not relative to the “polar-
coordinates of myself and the other”
 Love is not a social disposition like
altruism.
173
 One can love oneself genuinely
without falling into egoism but one
cannot fellow feel for oneself.
 Scheler says: “Love does not first
become what it is by virtue of its
exponents, their objects or their
possible effects and results.”

174
 THE ESSENCE OF LOVE
 Love (and hatred) as acts cannot be
defined but only exhibited.
 Hatred is not the opposite of love,
indifference is.
 Hatred is a disorder of the heart, a
movement to the direction.
 “Hatred looks for the existence of a
lower value…and to the removal of
very possibility of a higher value.”
175
 Love is an act and a movement of
intention.
 From a given value in an object, its
higher value is visualized.
 This vision of a higher value is the
essence of love.
 Love is not a reaction to a value
already felt, nor a search for the
value already given in an object or
person.
176
 Upon seeing that the value is real in
the object, one moves in intention to
higher values.
 One can be aware of the positive
values in an object without loving the
object.
 Love is creative.
 It sets up an “idealized paradigm of
value” for the objector person loved.

177
 This idealized paradigm of value is
not an imposition; it is implicit in the
object or person loved.
 This paradigm of value is neither a
creation or an enhancement of
values.
 The creativity of love brings into
appearance the higher possibilities of
value in the beloved.

178
 This paradigm of value is true and
real in the object loved, they only
wait confirmation.
 Karl Jaspers says: “In love, we do
not discover values, we discover that
everything is lovable.”
 Love relates to what has value rather
to value itself.
 Love is not limited to human beings.
 One can love nature, vocation, God.
179
 Love is an intentional movement
from a lower to a higher value of the
object love.
 Love is basically a movement.
 “Love at first sight” is not real love.
Real love moves to the higher
possibilities of value in the object.
 Intentional is not the same as
purposeful, motivational or striving
towards a goal.
180
 Intentional means directional in the
phenomenological sense.
 Phenomenological Intentionality-
consciousness is consciousness of,
loving is loving something or
someone.
 Love is concerned with the existence
or non-existence of higher values.
 Without indifference, love can
become an “attitude of constantly
prospecting, as it were, for new and
higher values in the object.” 181
 Prospecting for higher values can be
due to unsatisfied love.

 Without indifference, love can be

misunderstood as an attempt to raise
the value of the object loved, to
improve the beloved and help the
beloved acquire a higher value.

182
 A desire for improvement implies a
pedagogic attitude – “I love you
because I want to make you into a
better person.”
 A desire for improvement
necessitates making necessitates
making a distinction between what a
person is now and what he or she
should be. Love does not make this
distinction.
183
 Scheler says: “ Love itself in the
course of its own movement, brings
about the continuous emergence of
ever higher values in the object- just
as if it was streaming out from the
object of its own accord, without any
sort of exertion on the part of the
lover.”

184
 THREE MISUNDERSTANDING OF
LOVE

 When one loves, one does not seek

for new values in the object loved.
 When love opens one’s eyes to a
higher values in the object loved, it
is a consequence of love not because
of a “seeking.”
 An active seeking indicates an
absence of love.
185
 Genuine love is loving a person for
all that he or she is, including the
weaknesses and even during
disillusionment.
 Higher values are not given
beforehand as an ideal “to be looked
for” in the object loved; they are
disclosed and discovered in the very
movement of love.
 Love is an occasion for promoting
higher values like educating a
person. 186
 Love does not desire to change the
beloved.
 A desire to change the beloved is
rooted in a love that is conditional.
 Example of unconditional love:
 Mary Magdalene ( not “thou shalt

not sin no more; promise me this

and I will love thee and forgive thy
sins” BUT “go, and sin no more.”)
 The Prodigal Son

187
 We love being as they are.
 Love does not create higher values in
the beloved.
 Creating higher values is a projection
of one’s values into the other.
 It is due to a failure to free oneself
from being partial to one’s own
ideas, feelings, interests, in short
from egoism.
188
 “Love is that movement
wherein every concrete
individual object that
possesses values achieves
the highest value compatible
to its nature and ideal
vocation; or wherein it attains
the ideal state of value
intrinsic to its nature”
189
 LOVE AND MORAL VALUES
 Love includes the moral value of
goodness.
 Love of nature and love of art also
involve moral value.
 They contribute to the perfection of
person.
 They are spiritual acts.
 There is no such thing as love of
goodness.
190
 Love of goodness is Pharisaism:
loving people because they are good.
 Loving people not because of
concern, but because of the desire to
appear good.
 Love has the value of goodness.
 A person moral goodness is
determined according to the measure
of his or her love.
 It is in the movement from lower to
higher values that goodness appears
as values. 191
 HIERARCHY OF VALUES
 What are values?
 Values precede feeling state.
 Values are the foundation of feeling
states and their completion.
 Values do not exist only because
they are felt.
 In feeling a value, the value is given
as distinct from the act of it being
felt.
192
 Values have an a-priori character.
 Values are not goods. Goods are
carriers of value. Goods change, a
value does not change. E.g. the
value of friendship is still a value
even if a friend is being unfaithful.
 Values are independent of our
striving. E.g. The value of health.
 There is a hierarchy of values.
 This hierarchy also has an a-priori
character.
193
 There are positive and negative
values. A value cannot be both
positive and negative.
 SENSORY VALUES.
 Agreeable, pleasant versus
disagreeable, unpleasant.
 Values that are objects of sensory
feelings (corresponding to subjective
states of pleasure and pain).
 VITAL VALUES

194
 Values connected with general
wellbeing.
 Feelings of health and sickness,
ageing, exhaustion.
 Vital values are irreducible to the
pleasant or unpleasant values.
 SPIRITUAL VALUES
 Independent of the body and
environment.
 Values of the beautiful and the ugly,
aesthetic values.
195
 Values of the just and the unjust.
 Values of pure knowledge.
 Spiritual values are linked with the
feeling state of spiritual joy.
 Holy and the Unholy.
 Values of the holy are independent of
the things, objects and persons held
to be holy at different times.
 Values of the holy are higher than
spiritual values, vital values are
higher than sensory values.
196
 The movement of Love commences
only at the level of spiritual value.
 WHEN IS A VALUE HIGHER?
 A value is higher if it endures: Loving
not just today or tomorrow.
 A value is higher if it is less divisible:
value of bread versus the value of
work of art.
 A value is higher if it generates and
finds other values: Value of Life.
197
 Spiritual value: Life has value
because there are spiritual values.
 Depth of contentment or fulfillment:
Sensory Values compel one to search
for more enjoyment.
 A value is higher if it is not relative
to the organism experiencing it:
Spiritual Love does not depend on
physical characteristics versus
sensory values.
198
 Moral Values of good and evil refer to
the bringing about of values into
existence.
 Only person can do good and evil.
 Moral Tenor of a person: directness
of willing a higher value.
 MOVEMENT TO HIGHER VALUES IS
A MOVEMENT OF LOVE AND DOING
GOOD.
199