LESSON ONE

The Self from Philosophical Perspectives

Objectives

At the end of this unit, the students should have

1. discussed different philosophical concepts about the self

2. evaluated these standpoints about the self
3. summarized philosophical understanding of the self

Philosophical perspectives of the self – By philosophy here, it refers to discourses

from Socrates down to the present days, shared, defended, evolving, opposed,
disagreed. Philosophical thoughts are classified as classical antiquity, medieval, and
modern periods. We will try to investigate at least by summary selected philosophers’
understanding of the self. Man and self here are usually treated in the same
understanding.

Antiquity Period

1. Socrates thinks that individual self is rational, can obtain universal concepts of
truth. Hence, truth is beyond relative as rationality is universal whether one comes
from different race, culture, religion, creed, or status. To know universal truth, our
self must perform what is called inward reflection, that is to say, we have to
examine ourselves whether we are living by virtues.

For Socrates, knowledge and virtue are one. If you know the right, you do what is
right. Moral weakness is attributed to ignorance. Indeed, Socrates wants his
listeners to cultivate their minds, to live in virtues. For Socrates, life under virtues
means one lives in happiness.

2. Plato argues that self is dual: soul and body. The soul is immortal, while the
body is mortal. The soul is man, the real self, whereas the body is the false self.
Real self according to Plato is invisible to ours senses, whereas the false self is
visible. As soul, our true self is perfect, whereas our body, the false self, is
imperfect. That is why, abstract concept of beauty for instance which comes from
our soul is invisible, is unchanging throughout ages, but Paris Hilton’s beautiful
face which is visible to our senses, is changing as time passes by.

For Plato, human soul is tripartite which is in hierarchical order. First, there is the
rational soul, located in the head, the immortal, the seat of intellect. Second, the
spirit soul, located in the chest, perishable by death, the seat of emotion. Third, the
appetitive soul, located below the chest, also perishable by death, the seat of
 bodily desires. As the head, the rational soul must always lead the spirit, down to
the appetitive if the self were to live in virtue and happiness. If appetitive soul rules
over by suppressing the command of the higher souls in the self, then one lives in
vicious and unfulfilling existence.

3. Aristotle understands that thing or individual self is unity of form and matter.
For Aristotle, form is real not only in the mind but also in the thing or individual.
Which means that form and matter are beyond separation.

The reality of form according to Aristotle is not outside the reality of matter but
there in the matter. Which means the unchanging category in a thing is not
separate from that thing. As essences, form and matter are one in the thing or
individual self.

As essential form, soul has three classifications. First is the lower form of soul
called vegetative souls, which are present in all animals and plants which perform
reproductive activities. Because of these souls, animals and plants are
reproducing. Second is the higher form of souls called the sensitive souls, which
are present in all animals which perform activities such as perception, desire, and
local motion. Third is the highest form of souls called the human souls whose
activities are only towards virtues and happiness.

As animals, man has complete vegetative, sensitive, and human souls, which are
not all found in the rest of other organisms. For individual self to live by virtues and
happiness, one must heed the calls of human souls over and above the two souls.
If vegetative soul rules over by suppressing the highest command of human soul,
then one lives under vices and unfulfilling existence.

Medieval Period

4. St. Augustine says the search for virtues and happiness in ourselves is actually
the search for Christ as Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.

To attain the highest knowledge, St. Augustine counsels that we must contemplate
eternal truths which are found only in the mind of God by turning away from
material world.

Unchanging abstract ideas like justice, beauty, goodness, etc. are mental objects
worthy enough to contemplate as they are objects of true knowledge whose
dwelling is in God.

But is it possible that the self whose mind is weak can behold the eternal truths of
God? St. Augustine affirms that the human mind can contemplate the truths in the
mind of God by the aid called divine illumination. As free gifts from God, divine
 illumination enables the self through one’s mind to see the essence of God to live
in virtue and happiness.

5. Thomas Aquinas explains that perfect happiness, the ultimate end, is not found
in one’s self completely in this life, in any created thing, but only in God, the
supreme and infinite Good, in the afterlife. Only God can make ourselves
completely happy.

Our true happiness is essentially realized when we will ourselves in conformity

with reason and will of God.

Modern Period

6. Descartes concludes through his methodic doubt that there is a thing which
cannot be doubted, that is to say, thing which cannot be false. Descartes argues
that this thing beyond doubt is the foundation of our knowledge, which means, the
reason why we know something.

Descartes asserts that the thing that cannot be doubted is the fact that he doubts.
To doubt that he doubts is to affirm that he is thinking.

Therefore, Descartes could not doubt that he exists. He could not doubt that his
mind exists as well since to doubt is to think using his mind.

Descartes insists that “I think” is an activity that always involves a self. There must
be a self who thinks, and this self is “me” or “I”. This “I” is the thing who does the
thinking, the doubting. This “I” is indubitably certain as existing.

Descartes is famous for saying that individual self is the thing that is thinking.

7. David Hume criticizes Descartes’ conception of the self. As empiricist, Hume

says the indubitable thing for Descartes is not knowledge. For Hume, the “I think,
therefore I am” is only perception, hence is not knowledge. For all knowledge or
ideas according to Hume is the result of impressions.

Knowledge is the result of direct and clear immediate experience which defines
what impression is. Hume explains that the self is not the result of impression, but
only perception.

Eating, drinking, walking, running, sitting, thinking, dreaming are events taking
place which are impressions.

Hume argues that the self is nothing but a bundle of perceptions. We are left with
no basis to suppose that the self is knowledge or ideas.
8. Immanuel Kant, offering a resolution to Descartes and Hume debate, thinks
that our reasons are structured with empirical experience which we call
knowledge. Knowledge is not mind-independent as opposed to Descartes, nor
purely an empirical experience as opposed to Hume. Rather knowledge is formed
by active activities of the mind on the immediate object of experience. Our mind
can impose something on the object of our immediate experience, as architect
imposes a design on a natural landscape which then materializes and becomes
amazing one. Our mind does not stay passive to object of experience.

Which means that although we don’t experience our self directly, our mind can
derive ideas indirectly from our self’s immediate experiences like eating, drinking,
walking, etc. Because of active nature of our mind, we arrive at knowledge or
ideas of our self.

9. Friedrich Hegel thinks that our self is the work of the ultimate mind or spirit. For
one to be in better relationship with others and the world despite all odds and
pains, one must conform to the laws of the mind which is actively working all the
time for the freedom of all. By allowing the spirit to work for the betterment of one’s
self, one participates as active agent for the reign of the spirit in one’s self in
particular and the world in general.

10. Soren Kierkegaard thinks that human existence is a search of truth. He

defines truth as personal, something that I am willing to live and die for. The
search for truth is actually a search of truth for me. Truth is subjectivity. By
subjectivity, truth means a deeper meaning for me and for my life, a commitment
for my life. It is a passion for a life project, which though is uncertain for success,
yet the I find meaning and delight there.

11. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, a controversial thinker, suggests that human

existence must not be a search for truth, but for untruth. Philosophy is not a search
for knowledge, but a search for ignorance. And philosophy is not a search for
certainty, but a search for uncertainty.

For Nietzsche, philosophy is not the will to truth which is the virtue of the weak, but
the will to power which is the virtue of the strong. Unlike the weak, strong
individuals love their “fate,” affirming the continuous cycle of eternal recurrence
that characterizes life.

12. Michel Foucault refers the self as subjectivity which he calls a social
construction. By social construction, Foucault means that our self is the effect of
power relations, the set of rules that constitute the society. Social institutions for
instance are social mechanisms that provide readymade definitions of the self.

Foucault insists that life must be a work of art. One should seek not just to obey
the standards set for us but also to transform ourselves according to our
respective criteria and design. In a sense, Foucault doesn’t consider social
 standard to be the only creator of one’s self, but also an opportunity for us to make
ourselves as subjectivity.

13. Albert Camus says life is absurd, which means life has no meaning at all, has
no purpose. It implies that universe has no goal, or God is filled with
contradictions. All of these constitute the absurdity of every individual self. There is
absurdity which is a fact of life, it is there in every self. Man is living in an absurd
world.

If life is absurd, then what’s there to live for? Should we kill our self? Should we
commit to suicide? Should we altogether cease to live just to end absurdity in us
once and for all?

Camus thinks that solution to absurdity is not suicide. Suicide is not a proper
response of one’s self to absurdity. The fact that absurdity is inherent in our self,
something must be done to counter it.

Camus thinks that an appropriate response is not removing the absurdity from us,
but accepting it, becoming more aware of it, and finding ways how to manage it as
best as we can.

References

Ofalia, Bernardino Carreon EdD. (2018). Understanding the Self. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing.

Trajano, Glenn L. (2014). Love of Wisdom: Philosophy of the Human Person.

Philippines: FGHI.

_____________. (2014). Sociology and Anthropology: Fundamental Concepts on Man

and Society. Philippines: FGHI.