PHILOSOPHY

We have proven that Nature can be a source of understanding our world and humanity through the study of the ancient philosophers, cosmocentrism.

We have proven that the Divine can be a source of understanding our potential to be good through the study of the medieval philosophers, theocentrism.

This time we must prove that we can be a source of understanding our world and humanity. This time we must prove that we are capable of thinking and becoming sources of knowledge and as such be able to expressing our potential. This time we must prove that we are capable of achieving a happy life, anthropocentrism.

René Descartes (1596–1650)

- Descartes is considered by many to be the father of modern philosophy, because his ideas departed widely from current understanding in the early 17th century

- His approach to philosophy was something new during his time.

- He believed in basically clearing everything off the table, all preconceived and inherited notions, and starting fresh, putting back one by one the things that were certain, which for him began with the statement “I exist.” From this sprang his most famous quote: “Cogito Ergo Sum” which means I think; therefore I am.

- He believed that all truths were ultimately linked, he sought to uncover the meaning of the natural world with a rational approach, through science and mathematics

- Some of his works: Discourse on the Method; Meditations on First Philosophy; and Principles of Philosophy.

Lesson 1: Freedom of the Human Person

1. Absolute Freedom

a. I choose to go out during this COVID-19 quarantine. I got sick. I cannot blame anybody but myself for getting sick. It is my fault since I chose to go out during this time. I cannot blame the person whom I contracted the virus since that person may or may not know that he/she is sick.

b. Businesses are starting to open. I chose to go to a café and have coffee with drinks with my friends. On the way home, I got robbed by a hooded man. I reported it to the police. But in the end the police cannot do anything since there were no witnesses, no CCTV, etc. I have nobody to blame but myself because I chose to go out in the first place. Afterall, the robber was just expressing his freedom also. If he was caught, then he will face the consequences also. He cannot blame his condition etc.

c. We are now allowed to go out with minimum health requirements, I know that the virus is not yet totally eradicated, and the vaccine is still at testing stage. I decide to be more cautious. I changed my lifestyle. I don’t go to crowded places. Up to now I don’t acquire the virus.

2. Limited Freedom

a. I base my choices based on the laws, policies, and conditions of the current situation. It may limit my actions/decisions but I know it is for my own good. (What if it does not confer with what is considered as good?)

b. I choose not to go out during these times of pandemic since I am still 18 years old. There is a law saying I should not go out. Also, I don’t want to get sick.

c. I decided to go to the bar and have some drinks. I know what usually happens in a bar, in the vicinity of the bar. I know that there are others who do not consider other’s freedom; etc. thus I realize, my actions are limited. So, what will I do? I know that there is a law that I can depend on, etc. just in case anything happens. But would I risk it?

d. I chose to be more cautious because I know that COVID is not totally eradicated. Whether I acquire the virus or not, at least I know that I have been following the law and the standards of the current condition.

e. We see people posting their complaints, problems, issues, realizations, etc. about online classes. As a student, you are free to post your complaints in UBFILES, you can even curse and ridicule your school since you are free to do so. But free as you are, you know that, it is not helping the situation. Anyway, UBFILES is not the right avenue to express your opinion.

Lesson 2: Intersubjectivity

Before we start with our topic on intersubjectivity, let us have a little recap on our understanding of freedom. I have some observations. I noticed from your output; majority sees freedom in the context of what you can do but not what you ought to do. Remember Kant, how we elucidated the idea of duty, duty to the world. In our contemporary time, when we think of our duty for our personhood, we understand freedom in its highest possibility i.e., for the self, other, and the society.

Sartre understood freedom as being responsible for his own life no one to blame but himself if he erred that is why he made sure that he acted responsibly. As such he had a duty to his life that is to have a good life. On the other hand, some of your answers also considered the idea of freedom as an acceptance of how freedom is understood by masses.

Nietzsche criticizes this way of thinking. He said that the masses just accept what is given. It is just accepting the given situation. It is ok to accept as long as I have the internet to show I can do whatever, like eat all the food, TikTok, etc. then I am free.

Camus criticizes this form of freedom also saying that it is a form of resignation to what is commonly accepted like a fad. Freedom as an act of duty is grounded on the idea that choice must always be choosing what is right. I am not saying the correct choice but the choice that you can own up to that which I can and am responsible for. Nietzsche understood this in his realization about the Ubermensch (Superman) contrary to the lastman.

Camus understood acceptance and overcame it when he understood that life no matter absurd is still a good life because at the end of the day one can see the beauty of the sunset. Like Sisyphus, he saw the human person as an absurd hero. He who sees the meaning of his life in a meaningless universe. And last is Kierkegaard who understood that life is meaningful if one learns to take a leap of faith and be a knight of faith. A man who is capable of self-reflection.

A man who sees the world without the need for pleasing others or pleasing his present condition. A man who is capable of transcendence. When we speak of transcendence we also have to ask: what does limitation mean? As such, we go back to the idea of potentiality. Why do we have to ask such questions? Well, we can never really be responsible for the other if we are not able to really understand the responsibility of being free. So, it is not just a matter of voicing out our opinion but a matter of providing solutions. What can I do at my level/capacity?

Marx said “The point of philosophy is not to interpret the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

What philosophers have to ask about the society?

• The term society is derived from the Latin word ‘socius’, which means companionship or friendship.

• Two primary components of a society are its culture and its social structure. • Society is one of the basic sociological terms. In simple sense, society is a large grouping that shares the same geographical territory, shares a common culture and social structure, and expected to abide by some laws.

• The term society can also have a geographic meaning and refer to people who share a common culture in a particular location. For example, people living in mountainous area developed different cultures from those living in the low lands. In time, a large variety of human cultures arose around the world.

“Man is a social animal’, said Aristotle centuries ago. Man needs society for the attainment of his optimum happiness and where he can work and enjoy his life.” He regarded life friendship within a moral community as a vital component of human morality. Even in the Ethics, he noted that social order of admission to the Society of 'good life' was presumed, by the general concept of justice

What philosophers have to say about the inevitability of Death:

Martin Heidegger

1. Being in the world: his main interest was to raise the issue of Being, that is, to make sense of our capacity to make sense of things.

2. Being-in-the-world and thrownness: He proclaimed that we are ‘thrown’ into the world and that our Being-in-the-world is a ‘thrownness’ [Geworfenheit]. No biology of parentage can answer the question of whence we came into Being.

3. Angst: It is one of the distinctive ways through which Dasein (the historical person) is disclosed as a contingent being, and thus anxiety is that through which fear first becomes possible. Above all, True Angst arises from the notion that life is essentially pointless and absurd, and that our miserable existences count for very little in the grand scheme of things. For Heidegger, Angst reveals to Dasein the opportunity of fulfilling itself in a fervent ‘freedom towards death’. This freedom has been released from the delusions of the ‘they’ to become accurate, certain of itself, and anxious. The temporality of Dasein is solidified by the awesome certainty that all Being is a Being-toward-death and that, “The ‘end’ of Being-in-the-world is death.”

4. Temporality: We are in time. His task is to describe the movement of human finitude. The key to understanding time is that it is neither simply reducible to the vulgar experience of time, nor does it originate in distinction from eternity. Everything must come to an end in death. The temporality of Dasein is solidified by the awesome certainty that all Being is a Being-toward- death and that, “The ‘end’ of Being-in-the-world is death.”

5. Authenticity: Authentic existence can only come into being when individuals arrive at the realization of who they are and grasp the fact that each human being is a distinctive entity. Once human beings realize that they have their own destiny to fulfill, then their concern with the world will no longer be the concern to do as the masses do, but can become an ‘authentic’ concern to fulfill their real potentiality in the world.

6. Being-in-the-world and care: Sorge (care) is a fundamental tendency for Dasein to orient itself toward the world of things that surrounds it. It also refers to a kind of innate concern with the state of affairs that it is thrown into, but without the sentimentality as implied to the word. Sorge comes into the picture after Dasein is thrown into the world and has started to get curious. It is also part of the process where Dasein undergoes the process of authenticity.

Side note on Heidegger’s concept of care... “WHY WE CARE” ...

Once when “Care” was crossing a river, she saw some clay; she thoughtfully took a piece and began to shape it. While she was thinking about what she had made, Jupiter came by. “Care” asked him to give it spirit, and this he gladly granted. But when she wanted her name to be bestowed upon it, Jupiter forbade this and demanded that it be given his name instead. While “Care” and Jupiter were arguing, Earth (Tellus) arose, and desired that her name be conferred upon the creature, since she had offered it part of her body. They asked Saturn to be the judge. And Saturn gave them the following decision, which seemed to be just: “Since you, Jupiter, have given its spirit, you should receive that spirit at death; and since you, Earth, have given its body, you shall receive its body. But since “Care” first shaped this creature, she shall possess it as long as it lives. And because there is a dispute among you as to its name, let it be called “homo,” for it is made out of humus (earth).

7. Being towards death: In his view, death is the most original form of the possibility of Existence that threatens the entire universe, so the existence is understood by the notions of the way to be in charge of his own life. “Heidegger” is trying to show the truth that man (Existence), unlike any other living creature, is terminally affected by destruction and death. It is the encounter with death that most profoundly highlights the question of Being. “Only humanity ‘has’ the distinction of standing and facing death, because the human being is earnest about Being: death is the supreme testimony to Being. “Death opens up the question of Being” Thus Heidegger's detailed examination of human mortality was motivated by the question: what can death tell us about the fundamental meaning of Being? Being and Time owed much to his emphasis that “preparedness for death” is a fundamental key to authentic existence that the disclosure of authentic Being only occurs when Dasein confronts its own finitude by resolutely accepting that it is always, and inescapably, on a journey towards its own death.

Roger Troisfontaines

1. Death isn’t actually what people fear, it is separation.

2. He said that death means breaking a certain union with the world, and because of that, death will always be painful.

3. Death is a final misfortune, and that there is no remedy for that.

4. Death is a final mishap, and once you’re dead, there is no remedy, meaning, there is no going back. No matter how rich we are here, we won’t be able to bring them to our graves.

5. So, for him, what matters most is the relationships we make with other people, which remains here even if we don’t.