Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes

UNIT # 7: Humanity and Acting Humanely

No man is an island, the popular saying goes, and true enough, many philosophers across the
ages have held the belief that man is not just a rational animal, but a social animal as well. As more
and more people move into and populate our cities, it becomes increasingly important to consider
man’s role as a neighbor to others. In the same way that philosophy can help us learn more about
ourselves, philosophizing can also deepen our understanding of what it means to exist in relation to
those around us—of what it means for us as human beings to act humanely.
If you’re reading this, you’re most likely in your final years of high school. You’ve gone through
the past ten years, enjoying the company of friends and classmates and you’ve probably had some
memorable encounters with your teachers as well. Granted, there maybe a few people that you’ve
grown to disagree with, or even dislike, but for the most part, you’ve managed to make friends and
keep them. Of course, the world you live in is filled with far more strangers or “others” in your life.
Yes, you probably see a few familiar faces everyday—the barker and jeepney drivers, a street
vendor, your barangay tanod—but that doesn’t mean you know them as deeply as you do your family
and friends. Still, you’ve learned how to relate and co-exist with them. As a member of society, you
can interact with nearly everyone you encounter. There is, however, a certain danger to simply going
through the motions without stopping and reflecting about how you relate with others. As you busy
yourself with the day-to-day workings of your schedule, it becomes easy to think of other people as
simply “tools” to help you on your way. It is in this regard that philosophy can help us think about
ourselves in relation to the world and to others. To be a human being, one must act humanely, and
figuring out how is an endeavor worth taking.
Lesson 1: Understanding your Neighbor
It is difficult to interact with others in a way that it wouldn’t be offensive or inappropriate without
first making the effort to understand them and where they come from. Having the patience and the
openness to know the other is a vital if one wishes to act humanely.
As much as you’d like to think of yourself as the star of the show, as the leading man or
woman in your life, sooner or later, you’ll have to come to grips with the realization that the “feature
film” of your life is populated with other various characters. Yes, in your eyes, you may be the most
important actor, but you can hardly make a good film with just one performer. Soon you realize that
the “extras” in your life probably think of themselves the same way you do. Each of us, in essence, is
“the captain of our ship, the master of our soul.”
Since each of us is a Subject in this world, it would do us well to make sense of our
relationships with each other. While it true that we get along with some people, we don’t need to think
long and hard to remember an instance when we disagreed with someone else. Maybe you preferred
liempo for lunch but your friends wanted some kare kare and so you argued, and someone had to
give in. Sometimes, though, the disagreements are more serious. You may feel strongly about a
certain politician or government policy while someone else is of a completely different opinion. What
accounts for these differences? How is it possible that even your siblings and closest friends, despite
being brought up in similar conditions, can have such different views compared to your own? It is
precisely because our world is one of Intersubjectivity—of many different Subjects interacting with
one another—that there are differences in opinion, preference, and lifestyle. Philosophers through the
ages have tried to make sense of this reality.
For the most part, many agree that it is human freedom that accounts for our differences, and
seeing why is pretty straightforward. I am free to like the latest Marvel movie if I want to. In turn, you
are free to dislike it and prefer the latest D.C. movie instead. Similarly, I have been gifted with the
freedom to inform myself about certain issues that matter to me. I can choose, for better or worse,
which pieces of information to take in and which ones to ignore. By and large, we are molded by the
choices we make, and since we make different choices, we are bound to have differences in opinion.
Contemporary Existentialist philosophers like Gabriel Marcel believe that there are two kinds of
freedom: freedom of choice and fundamental option. Freedom of choice is probably our common
sense understanding of freedom.
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
Essentially, it is the ability to choose between goods. I can choose to study for my Math exam
instead of playing video games. I can choose to buy a cheaper, simpler phone rather than the latest
iPhone because I help pay for my younger sibling’s tuition. This type of freedom is called horizontal
freedom because when exercising it, we are choosing between more or less similar goods. But if we
think about these choices, we realize that each choice we make reflects our value system. Which
values do I prefer or prioritize when I make a decision?
When I choose to study instead of play, I show that I value learning more than fleeting
pleasure. When I choose to be frugal with my money in buying a phone, I show that I value helping
my family more than I do prestige or technological comfort. This type of freedom is called
fundamental option because it is our general direction or orientation in life. This type of freedom is
also called vertical freedom because some values are higher than others. Many would agree, for
example, that valuing education is “higher” in a sense than valuing profit or monetary gain.
The early twentieth century German philosopher Max Scheler believed that love means
preferring higher values and hate or egoism is the preference of lower values. That is, for Scheler, the
more you choose to act in ways that value learning instead of pleasure, you are showing love.
Conversely, if you choose to value prestige over the opportunity to help your family, you’re expressing
hate and being egotistical.
Amidst all of your differences with your fellow man, remember that you cannot deny or take
away someone else’s freedom. In the same way, it would do you well to think about the values which
help inform not only your decisions, but those of society as a whole. What values do you live by?
Which values inform and influence your decisions?
Lesson 2: Appreciating your Neighbor
While it is no secret that philosophers value knowledge and wisdom, we must also admit that
knowledge in itself cannot change the world.
The greatest and most helpful inventions started out as small ideas in the minds of inventors
but it wasn’t until someone got up and acted on those ideas that technological progress began to
flourish. The same is true for man and his relationship with others. Understanding each other and
acknowledging personal freedom and differences are important, but to stay on just that level of
engagement would be a disservice to the humanity of the other.
In effect, as Subjects confronting other Subjects in this world, we have an obligation to
appreciate others for who they are, fully and wholly, as fellow human beings. Of course, appreciating
here does not simply mean getting along with others or praising them. So what exactly do we mean
by “appreciating” others? Perhaps the ideas of eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel
Kant can help us. Kant believed that human beings are ends-in-themselves, that no one exists to
simply be used by other people, as if they were an object. What Kant meant was that we are rational
and autonomous, and so we have the ability to think about and set our own goals and aspirations.
Sadly, however, many people—even in the world today—are treated as objects, or what Kant
would call mere means. That is, some people use others without any regard to their freedom or
interests. For example, the victims of human trafficking are treated as mere means, whether for
sexual exploits or unjust labor practices. The individuals who are responsible for the trafficking have,
in effect, treated other people as simply objects that are traded around. They have shown no regard
at all for the freedom, desires, and ambitions of other people.
We don’t have to look far and to such drastic examples to realize that we, too, sometimes use
other people as mere means. Consider this example: All of your friends are going to the beach in La
Union for the weekend. Naturally, you don’t want to miss out but admit that you don’t have enough
money for the bus ride and hotel. And so, you ask your favorite tita for money, telling her that you
need money to buy books and school supplies. Now with enough cash, you get to enjoy a beach trip
with your friends.
Just as we make an effort to understand each other, we should never forget to appreciate each
other in this Kantian sense as well. Each person is an end-in-himself and has the freedom and
autonomy to set goals and work towards them.
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes

Lesson 3: Man and His Neighborhood

The beginnings of harmonious intersubjectivity are rooted in understanding and appreciating
the other. The practicalities, however, are much more complex, and it is often because of the details
that many individuals begin to argue and disagree. In this light, it is important to reflect on what it
means to be just one part of a larger neighborhood.
Ask a random person on the street to define the word “freedom” and you’re likely to get a
response along the lines of “the ability to choose” or “the absence of constraints and limitations.”
Freedom is probably man’s most valued good in this world—from freedom of speech to the freedom
to assemble and protest—but too much of it might not be such a good thing.
According to seventeenth century English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, living in a world in
which we could exercise absolute freedom would be terrifying. Our lives, he believes, would be
“nasty, brutish, and short”. At first glance, it’s tempting to think of a world in which rules did not exist.
Nothing is illegal, nothing is immoral, and so you could do absolutely anything you wanted. If you
wanted to, you go enter a complete stranger’s house and simply take food from his refrigerator.
You’ve always wanted a pet dog, so you just grab the dog by the leash and take him from your
neighbor’s yard. It is, in a very selfish and personal way, the perfect world.
However, things take a turn for the worse when you realize that you’re not the only one who
has absolute freedom. Everyone is absolutely free to do what they want as well. They free to steal, to
kill, to rape, and so on, and in such a world, this would be fine. If this idea starts to frighten you, know
that it frightens others too.
Hobbes argues that this lawless world is the state of nature and that rational beings would
logically want to change such a system. Yes, freedom is good and it is an undeniable right of every
person, but too much freedom—that is, freedom without countermeasures or security—leads to
chaos. In short, he believed that people imbued with freedom and rationality would realize that there
are more benefits in cooperating with each other than in not cooperating. This is what he termed a
contract or shared agreement between individuals.
In this light, actions which are considered “good” or “right” are those which do not violate the
agreements made between people within the society. We give up some freedoms in order to enjoy
the benefits brought about by cooperative living. You can no longer take anything from that stranger’s
house hence he can’t do the same to you. On the other side of the coin, if you or anyone violates the
agreement or laws, you would also have to accept whatever punishment is waiting for you.
This is, in Hobbes’ view, how we came up with laws and certain punishments. Even though we
have to follow certain rules and regulations—sometimes explicitly written, like in a country’s
constitution and penal code—we are, by and large, better off because we’ve entered into an
agreement with one another.
This is, in effect, the idea behind and purpose of our taxes. We give up the freedom to use all
of our money the way we would want to and give some to the government. In return, the government
should, ideally, provide us with well-paved roads, clean streets and parks, functioning electricity,
clean water, and other civil services. Because of our collective decision to organize ourselves and our
society in this way, we avoid the “nasty, brutish, and short” life brought about by a world of absolute
freedom.
Living humanely as part of a wider neighborhood entails, at the most basic level, sticking to the
contract and conventions set by the community of Subjects in the world. Even if you disagree with
other due to differences in opinion, acceptance of each other and of this social contract is the starting
point for cooperation and dialogue.
This doesn’t mean, however, that the agreements made in the past should never be changed.
Laws change and are amended all the time, and it is up to us to properly convene and enter into
rational discourse with one another to improve the state of our affairs.
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes

Lesson 4: Man as an Active Neighbor

It has often been said that our actions speak much louder than our words. As we philosophize
and reflect deeper into the meaning of our relationships with others, it dawns on us that our actions
are the best indication of how we treat our fellow man.
How does one act knowing full well that everyone around him is composed of different
thoughts and feelings and opinions? How is it possible to engage in genuine, constructive dialogue if
the people conversing have different goals and intentions?
Understanding and appreciating your fellow man is the beginning of humane living, and
keeping your word in the agreed-upon social contract is the starting point of civilized discourse, but
there is no clear-cut or specified rulebook for behavior or interpersonal interaction. It’s not as if
mankind was given some sort of moral code which we could just read and follow.
Many would argue that the Bible gives us guidelines on how to act humanely, but just as many
people would pounce on the idea and point out that morality and basic human decency should not be
based on matters of faith. That said, it would be wise to go back in time, and see how philosophy has
dealt with the question of moral action. How exactly should you act in relation to your fellow man?
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed the idea of Virtue Theory, which isn’t exactly
a moral code, but more of the notion that good and righteous actions are the result of a person’s good
character.
That is, there is no explicit moral code that needs to determined and followed. Rather, the right
thing to do simply stems from being virtuous. For Aristotle, having virtue means being able to do the
right thing, at the right time, in the right amount, and in the right way. Now this may seem vague, but
Aristotle believes that this “right mix of actions” is simply the Golden Mean between two extremes. In
this regard, there is no one specific action or response for any situation.
The virtuous thing to do at any given moment changes based on what’s happening. Take, for
example, this scenario: You’re walking down a street when you see smoke coming out of a building.
You realize that a fire’s starting and some people are trapped in their rooms with no way to get out
without harming themselves. What is the virtuous thing to do? Do you rush in and save everybody?
Do you simply run away, screaming and panicking? Or do you call the firefighters to address the
problem? Aristotle would argue that the virtuous thing to do, at least in this situation, would be to call
for the authorities, because they’re the ones equipped to address the problem.
Rushing in and acting like a hero is an excess of courage whilst running away, panicking is a
deficiency of courage. And so, if we wanted to be virtuous the way Aristotle intended, we’d have to
find the Golden Mean in each situation and respond appropriately. This sounds good, but brings up
one obvious problem: If the right thing to do changes depending on the scenario, how is it possible to
be virtuous all the time?
For Aristotle, being virtuous was a matter of practice. It’s a way of living that can be learned
only through experience. You are drawn to others who are virtuous—people who Aristotle considered
to be moral exemplars—and learn to copy or emulate their actions and behavior. As you practice
being virtuous, you eventually learn to always do the right thing, to always find the Golden Mean no
matter the situation. Do you consider the life you’re currently leading to be virtuous?
Lesson 5: Man as a Proactive Neighbor
As much as being humane has to do with your actions in the present moment, it is also true
that our actions today can and will affect the state of our world tomorrow. As moral agents, we bear
some responsibility for how the lives of others can be improved, not just in the present, but for the
foreseeable future as well.
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
If you are, like many students currently reading this lesson, familiar with the basic principles of
philosophy like existence and essence, and deductive and inductive arguments, then it’s safe to say
that you have something a great number of the population doesn’t—a formal education.
According to the latest Teach for the Philippines data, only 1 in 8 Filipino students will get to
finish their tertiary studies and obtain a college degree. Now, this isn’t an Economics or Social
Studies class, but the reality is still alarming.
Why is it that some people are “lucky enough” to be able to study and others aren’t? Where is
the fairness in that? When we begin to think of pressing matters such as inequality, we begin to think
of the concept of Justice. In essence, we are concerned with fairness and equality. Is justice about
getting what we need or what we deserve?
In our interactions with others, we often notice that some groups of people are better off than
others. Some people may be kind and well-natured, but are in the depths of poverty. Meanwhile,
there are some who are blessed with unimaginable riches, but act in such a way that we think they
don’t deserve what they have. Why is the world seemingly lacking in justice and fairness? Is this
condition mostly due to our actions or are there social structures which make it difficult for other
people to improve their state of life?
Whether we like it or not, this is the state of the world we live in. In response, a number of
philosophers have proposed the idea of Justice as Equality, the belief that everyone, regardless or
background, should receive the same kind and amount of material and economic possessions. One
argument against this, however, is that distributing wealth is not all that simple, and often, many
individual rights and freedoms will be bypassed. Yes, it would be nice for everyone to receive the
same things, but not everyone put in the same amount of work. Why should I receive less when I
worked twice as hard as my neighbor?
Other philosophers propose a sort of Merit-based Justice, wherein wealth is distributed
according to what each person deserves. In this way, when I get more for my work, I see it as fair and
just, because, after all, I worked more and much harder than others. But what if it is physically
impossible for one individual to work and, hence, “deserve” some things? Does this mean that justice
is only for those who can contribute to society in the most basic economic sense?
Contemporary American philosopher John Rawls believed that Justice is Fairness, that it is
based on the needs of individuals. In effect, the inequalities in our social systems should benefit those
who are least well-off. The thinking goes that, if an individual needs help, he should be given that help
in order to get up on his feet and improve from there.
As is often the case in philosophy, there is no general consensus, and many will disagree as to
which framework to adopt or live by. What we can do, as students of philosophy, is to keep in mind
that our actions almost always affect the state of justice and fairness in our society.

UNIT # 8: The Human Person as a Social Animal

Aristotle, in his work Politics, said that “man is, by nature, a social animal”. This is a fact he
observed from hundreds of years ago which is still evident until today. The strength of human beings
are within their number. It is quite impossible for us to achieve what we have achieved if we are
alone. Although there are outstanding individuals in different fields, we cannot say they have done it
all by themselves. In all areas of the world, we would find a certain group of people who have
something in common with each other and call themselves by different names – a country, a tribe, an
organization, a cooperative, even just a circle of friends. These are all an aspect of something we’ve
had since the dawn of civilization: a society.
Tom has now graduated from college and has earned his degree. He has found a job, he is
contributing to their household every month, and he has his dreams of securing a better position in
his career, owning a car, building a house, starting a business, and having the means to travel. He is
also in a happy relationship for two years with Sybil, whom he met while he was in college. Sybil,
then, offered Tom to move in with her in her condominium in Manila which is closer to Tom’s office. In
terms of practicality, it is good for Tom since he would be able to save a significant amount of money.
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
However, Tom came from a religious family, and he knows they wouldn’t allow him and Sybil to live
together without first getting married in a religious ceremony. He has also realized he cannot afford a
decent marriage celebration yet.
Tom, technically, does not need his family’s permission as he is already beyond the legal age
of consent. However, he is still hesitant with the idea as he doesn’t want his family to be disappointed
of him.
Hence, he declined Sybil’s offer. In Sociology, the family is considered as the first society a
human being experiences. Not only the first, but also the foundational. Our beliefs and practices are
shaped by our family. In the situation given above, we would find Tom’s decision is guided by the
consideration of the religious belief of his family. We may not be fully aware of it, but our lives are
formed by the society we belong to. An examination and reflection on these effects are worth doing in
order for us to be better contributors to this society.
Lesson 1: The Shapes of Society
One thing all human beings in the world today have in common is the fact that we are born
into a certain society. Like in your situation, the world was not empty when you came into it. You
already belong to a society – the Philippine society. However, thousands of years ago, even before
there were philosophers, even before human beings learned how to write, there are individuals who
started to form groups, placed rules and rulers in them, shared practices, and established cultures.
How did they start it? How did entering into a society change their lives? We will answer these
questions in this lesson as we talk about the shapes of society.
Human beings learned to form societies first before they have learned to record their
accomplishments. In Philosophy, there is a theory that addresses the origin of society which states
that human beings entered into a contract with each other to surrender some of their freedom and
rights for the safety and protection of their other rights. This is known as the social contract theory.
Violation of the social contract allows the offended party to punish the offender through the rules they
have established upon the creation of the contract.
It is important to note that the social contract is not necessarily a piece of paper that two or
more people have signed. It is only a metaphor for the understanding and agreement between the
individuals as they created their society.
One principal social contract theorist is Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes’ theory starts with the
proposition that humans are basically self-interested. Our actions are performed because it has a
benefit for us, one way or another. For example, we eat, drink, sleep, because we want to survive and
continuously live. Young people study in schools because they want to land in a good job and
improve their lives, and even those who are not in schools, would certainly want to if they have the
opportunity. Or even if they do not want to go to school, they have a certain reason for themselves. In
other words, our motives are basic selfish motives.
Hobbes’ social contract theory rests on the hypothetical state of nature. The state of nature is
the situation of human beings before any form of society was established. There are no rules, no
laws, no traditions, no rulers to follow. It is a situation that is brutish and competitive. In this situation,
Hobbes stated, “homo homini lupus est”. It is a Latin sentence that translates to “man is a beast to
another”. This suggests that human beings who are in the state of nature are like animals who have
the freedom to harm each whenever they want to because they are purely self-interested.
But Hobbes also recognized that human beings became reasonable. He thought that man’s
capability to think would enable him to realize that he cannot live a life within the state of nature.
Man’s reason would allow him to understand that the state of nature is the worst situation he could be
in. Although the state of nature is a situation of absolute freedom, human beings would have to give it
up in order to maximize their desires. Thus, human beings would enter into a social contract with
each other. The contract would have conditions, and these include the following: 1) they must
collectively agree to give up some of their rights and freedom that they initially held while they were in
the state of nature; and 2) they must choose a person or a group of persons who has the authority to
implement the rules they would create in the contract.
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
With the establishment of the social contract, human beings can create laws like not killing
each other or not stealing from one another, and so on. Thus, a social contract is the mark of the
beginning of a civil society, and that human beings who entered into it cannot violate it. If they would
abolish the contract, they would return to the state of nature, which, Hobbes believed, no reasonable
human being would like. Like Hobbes, the Genevan philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed
that societies originated from the creation of a social contract. However, unlike Hobbes, Rousseau
thought that man was not in a brutal situation in the state of nature, quite the contrary. He believed
that at the start of civilization, the human population was not as big as today. There are only a few of
us, and so resources seem unlimited. Hence, there is no need for man to kill or steal or to commit
other crimes because there was more than sufficient for every one. However, as time and society
progressed, the inevitable happened: the population grew larger, resources are becoming more and
more limited, and some human beings started to claim lands as their property. The social contract
and the government was thus created in order to protect the private property of those who own it.
These made an impact on individual human beings as there are others who do not have
property and they were forced to work for those have it. The society, then, proceeded to division of
labor and the development of social classes
We can say, then, that human beings formed society, and its creation had effects that impacts
an individual human being. Upon the conception of division of labor, the effect of this on an
individuals is that he is set to do the same tasks for the rest of his life. With the development of social
classes, individuals would differ in terms of their manner, behavior, and may be even practices.
Ruling and upper classes tend to be finer and delicate in their demeanors. Working classes are seen
to be more resilient and resourceful. This shows that how we formed our societies also made
changes for us as members of it.
Lesson 2: The Shapes of Society II
The shapes of societies in the world are continuously changing as time progresses. As
individuals evolve, so does our society. As we advance in history, more and more features of our
society are taken into account as they contribute to the development of an individual. The conditions
of our environment make us unique in some way, and it is significant enough for us to study them. In
this lesson, we will have a discussion not only on how individuals shape the society, but also how a
society shapes an individual.
In his widely-read dialogue, The Republic, Plato described his utopian society that is based on
his theory of the soul. According to Plato, a person’s soul has three parts. This theory is also known
as the Tripartite Theory of the Soul. The three parts are: Appetitive, Spirited, and Rational.
The Appetitive part is the one responsible for our desires and appetites. This part is necessary
for our survival, for one cannot continuously live if he does not have an appetite for food, water, and
other factors the human body needs. However, the Appetitive part can also desire for things we do
not necessarily need – like a new designer bag, or the latest style of shoes, etc. Thus, Plato proposed
that we ought to control our appetites and strive for the virtue of moderation which would enable us to
manage and check our desires.
The Spirited part is the one responsible for our will and volitions. This part is needed for us to
take the proper action on things that has risks. For example, if a young person would like to start a
business, but if his will is weak and he is always afraid that it might fail before he even starts, this
would mean that the Spirited part of his soul is weak. Thus, Plato proposed that we also need to
control our Spirit and strive for the virtue of courage which would allow us to act even if we have fear.
The Rational part is the one responsible for our reason or intellect. The rational part is
important for us to make good decisions on the problems we face everyday. Hence, we ought to
strive for the virtue of wisdom in order for us to have a clear and sound mind that would enable us to
choose what is right.
Plato believed that there are people whose Appetitive parts are dominant in them, there are
people whose Sprited parts are the ones always in function, and there are people whose Rational
parts are always exercised. It is from this notion that Plato described his utopian society. Each person
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
belongs to a certain group or class depending on which part of the soul is evident in him. In this group
or class, he has a certain role to play.
The people who are Appetitive in nature ought to be the general public – they are the
merchants, laborers, or artisans. In today’s time, we could say that these people are the employees,
vendors, and other service-oriented workers. Those who are Spirited ought to be the militia – these
are the soldiers that protect our lands or the police who implement the laws. Those who are Rational
ought to be the rulers or the public officials who create the laws and makes the biggest decisions in
the country. Following Plato’s theory means that the citizens and the general public should have the
virtue of moderation, the soldiers and police should possess courage, and the rulers and public
officials should be wise. This suggests the idea that each individual in the society has a part that he
should discover by himself and proceed to contributing to his society. Each decision would transform
his being as it would bring him to a way of life that is different from everyone else.
One significant sociologist of the late 19th up to early 20th century is Émile Durkheim. He
initiated the idea of Functionalism. Functionalism proposes that each society has a unique
characteristic of its own that may be studied objectively and scientifically, just as how scientists study,
for example, the activities of microorganisms. It suggests that, just like the human body, the society
has different parts (e.g. institutions, organizations, associations, etc.) that work together in harmony
and balance, contributing equally in order for the society to function well and survive as a whole.
Durkheim also proposed the idea that each society has a collective consciousness. For
Durkheim, each culture pass on certain values, beliefs, and taste to the individuals who belong in it
and these values and beliefs direct the behavior of these individuals even without their knowing. For
example, we would find that Filipinos in almost all parts of the country are hospitable. We are
renowned for this unique characteristic. Although there could be some people who are not as
hospitable than most of us, we still find inhospitality and being unwelcoming with a certain dislike and
aversion. Also, even if we are now more open towards other cultures, a typical Filipino would still
choose halo-halo over chendol or sisig over beef bourguignon. Through collective consciousness, our
society also shapes our preferences and behavior.
It is also evident that the rules and laws of a certain society reflect their collective
consciousness. Some states in the United States of America have legalized the use and vending of
marijuana. In the Philippines, both and even the possession of such is considered a crime. It is
because within the collective consciousness of Filipinos, marijuana and other drugs are distinguished
negatively. And so our laws forbid it. Thus, committing a crime or doing something illegal is also a
violation against collective consciousness.
Lesson 3: The Institutions of Society
Throughout history and all over the world, human beings have taken different forms of society
in terms of the resources available to them, their economic standing, and even their political systems.
Each of these forms carry a unique characteristic that has made its members unique too. In this
lesson, we shall compare their uniqueness and similarities with each other, find out where we
currently stand, and discover both their benefits and burdens.
We can classify the forms of societies into three: Pre-industrial, Industrial, and Post-industrial.
In Pre-industrial societies, human beings are directly dependent on their environment, as their
technological level is not as advanced as we have today. An Industrial society is dependent on
machines and human labor in order to manufacture products with the exact same quality. A Post-
industrial society is characterized as the age of information and technological advancements where
people are highly dependent on these advancements for communication and transactions for different
kinds of services. Pre-industrial societies include Hunting and Gathering societies, Pastoral societies,
Horticultural societies, and Agrarian societies. An example of an Industrial society is a Capitalistic
society, while a Post-industrial society include a Virtual society.
A Hunting and Gathering society, which is also known as a Tribal society, is characterized with
primitive practices. Individuals formed a small group with a little more or less 100 members that are
divided into two: the hunters and the gatherers. The hunters, which are usually the men, go hunting
every day for animals that will be shared by all the members of the tribe. The gatherers, on the other
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
hand, which are usually the women, would have to gather edible plants that would also be consumed
by all. Members of a hunting and gathering society do not plant nor take animals, and so they keep
moving from one place to another when they run out of resources in their current position.
A Pastoral society has members that take animals to meet their basic needs for food, and for
domestication and breeding. They can provide more food for their members, and because they do not
just meet their basic needs, they were able to create different kinds of crafts from the animals like
clothing, accessories, and tools. Having the ability and the means to create these crafts has
encouraged trading which would eventually result with some families being more wealthy than others.
A Horticultural society focuses on the nurturing of plants, fruits, and vegetables through a
certain level of technology. They study the plant life and look for ways and methods to cultivate them
better, like using fertilizers for a healthier and better produce.
An Agrarian society also uses a level of technology with planting crops like ploughing in order
to harvest them in large amounts. Agrarian societies also included harvesting of products from
animals like cows, pigs, and chicken. This society can support a larger number of members since
they also have a large amount of food supply. Because of large supply of food, not all members of the
Agrarian society need to work in the fields. Thus, opening them to other opportunities and work which
has allowed an exchange, buying and selling of goods. This has paved the way to an Industrial
society as some individuals are wealthier and has acquired more properties that allowed them to
invest in more technologies and machineries that would result to further profit.
An Industrial society is characterized with Capitalism where there is a free competition of
private individuals who own the means of production. Capitalism is considered as society with many
institutions of businesses that mass produce certain products. Due to a rise of machinery and
technology, individuals were willing to work even with low wages. Hence, human labor became
cheaper resulting to inequality and social classifications. Laborers and machine operators are poor,
they are considered unimportant, and can be easily replaced.
A Post-industrial society is characterized with Virtual society due to a further development in
technology. More technological advancements has allowed individuals to communicate faster and
exchange information more efficiently even if they are in different sides of the globe. Trading and
businesses are no longer confined in one area, but could have the entire world as its market. The
Virtual society has also allowed individuals to connect with each other in order to achieve their
common objectives.
Lesson 4: The Hands that Shape Society
Whether we like it or not, our beliefs and perspectives are somehow clouded by the principles
of the society that brought us up. The standards one use in finding a partner, how parents rear their
children, what we think about relationships, and many others are all influenced, in a way, by our
social upbringing. In this lesson, we will tackle different social systems that has transformed its
members’ quality of life, and how these members can change and shape these social systems.
One of the most notable philosopher in the area of Social and Political Philosophy, Economics,
and Sociology is Karl Marx. Marx was mainly a German economist who wrote two important books on
the fall of Capitalism and the rise of Socialism. These books are, respectively, Das Kapital and The
Communist Manifesto. Marx thought that there are three means of production – these are basically
what an individual or a company would need in order to make a product, in order to “produce”
something. These are land, labor, and capital. Land not only refers to a place or a space a certain
business would occupy, but also to crops and animals where raw materials would come from. Labor
refers to human labor which businessmen need in order to operate their machines. Capital not only
refers to money but to tools, equipment, and machines that would be used to create a product.
Marx had a comprehensive theory of history, together with Friedrich Engels, in which he
detailed the different social systems that has occurred in history. These social systems present in
stages: Primitive Communism, Feudalism, then Capitalism. Capitalism was the prevailing social
economic during Marx’s time, and so he believed that it will eventually collapse to be replaced by
Socialism.
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
Primitive Communism is characterized with small tribes of few members whose only activities
were hunting and gathering of food. It is called primitive due to the fact that the activities were for the
basic and ancient way of survival. It is a form of communism because the members of the tribe freely
share the resources. The hunters share everything they seized to the community, and so did the
gatherers. Each member who is assigned to any particular work distributes his produce to everyone
fairly. There was no concept of private property, money, or trading. Individual relationships are
characterized with simple life and generosity because everything is owned by everyone.
As time passed by, the population grew larger and larger. More and more human beings are
inhabiting the Earth as tribes developed families and clans. Some clans would separate from their
original tribe to form their own tribe. Resources are starting to be recognized as limited. Thus, there
have been occurrences when one tribe would dominate another. Tribes started to fight each other
and whoever wins would take the land of the losing side as their properties, and the survivors as their
slaves. This resulted to Feudalism. Feudalism is characterized by having upper classes as the
landowners. The slaves or the lower classes work hard to till the land of the owners in exchange for a
small piece of land they can live in for themselves. There is a feudal lord, or an emperor, or a chief,
and as history went further – a monarch. The upper classes are given lands and titles by the
monarch. The lower classes are characterized as submissive, inferior, and has fear of authority.
Individual relationships have been divided due to the social classes. There is a gap among the rich
and the poor. The children of the upper classes are not allowed to be mixed with the slaves, and a
union between a great lord/lady to a peasant is not only forbidden, but also viewed with disgust.
Eventually, trading has developed. Some people were able to create unique things that only
they can produce. Thus, small businesses started to pop up, and shops and factories emerged. Little
by little, the businessmen were the wealthiest people, they control the government and the means of
production. This is Capitalism. It is characterized with free competition among different businesses,
and the focus of each person is to make more money. The capitalists or businessmen are now
considered as the upper class, while slaves are replaced by the factory workers and the working
class. Through the efficiency of machines, human labor has been replaced and became cheaper.
According to Marx, the capitalists maximized this opportunity by providing lower wages to the
working class, thus making themselves wealthier. Because of lower wages, the working class needed
to work for long periods of time in order to make sufficient money to support themselves and their
families. Hence, the working class has no time for leisure and recreational activities. All they do with
their time is to continuously work. For Marx, this resulted to alienation of labor.
According to Marx, the working classes are in a miserable situation and would eventually
realize that they are being exploited by the capitalists. Thus, he wrote The Communist Manifesto to
encourage the workers in the world to unite, and ignite a revolution to take Capitalism down. A new
social system, then, would rise: Socialism. In a Socialist society, there is a strong government
management of products. Resources like food, healthcare, security, etc. are controlled by the
government for all the people in which these resources are distributed justly to everyone. For Marx,
this system would lead to flourishing relationships of individuals as the society is characterized with
justice and equality. The result is a harmonious relationship among the people because there is no
division of classes, no rich or poor, and no comparison.
Lesson 5: The Society that Shapes
The previous lessons have presented different forms of society in terms of economic and/or
political areas. Our task, then, in this lesson is to examine their influences on an individual’s
relationships and evaluate how we can take them in improving our own society, in order for us to live
flourishing lives with a harmonious relationship with each other. The influence of our surroundings
has made a great contribution to each person’s humanity.
Thus, it is also an important goal for us to determine how our social interactions determine our
behavior and We have recognized the fact that our behavior, preferences, attitude, and beliefs can be
determined by our social interactions. We prefer a certain design of shoes because it is what we have
observed to be desirable in the eyes of people surrounding us. An individual may believe that same-
sex marriage is either right or wrong based on his upbringing. Our emotions towards animals may
have been guided by our previous experiences with them. We can also observe that Filipinos who
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
grew up during the 90’s almost have the same opinion that it is better for children to play traditional
games within their neighborhood, than playing with their iPads in an airconditioned room. These are
just some examples of how much our social activities influenced our lives. However, the task is to
evaluate how the type of our society reflect our dealings with other people.
Different social systems carry different cultures and principles affecting its members’
relationships. Traditional societies are leaning towards patriarchy and values that put importance on a
good relationship within the family. Deviants or rebels are not only viewed but also reinforced
negatively. Marriage is seen as sacred, thus views on separation and divorce are not welcome. It also
puts emphasis on authority and tradition. For example, in a family with six members – two parents
with four children, the elder children are raised with higher authority and heavier responsibilities while
younger children are taught to be obedient and submissive. Roles of girls are different to that of boys.
In school, girls are taught home economics, cooking, sewing, and other crafts, while boys are taught
about circuits, carpentry, driving, and so on.
Secular societies, on the other hand, lean towards freedom of individual expression and
liberalism, and allows unconventional relationships. It is also more open to interracial relations and
has a view on marriage as more of a legal process than a religious one. Hence, these societies
accept the concept of divorce. Family relationships are also viewed as egalitarian. This means that
parents treat each other equally, as well as their children. Children are not given the roles based on
gender or birth order, but are given the same tasks and responsibilities.
Some individuals in other social systems also prefer to live in extended families. Like the
Philippines, many households do not only contain a traditional family but includes grandparents or
aunts and uncles. While there are facilities for the elderly around the country, only a minor part of the
population utilize them. There are also social systems that has a lot of care facilities for elderlies and
its members make use of them.
Every social system has its unique characteristics that can shape its members. However, they
also tend to view problems and solutions that are solely based on their beliefs and principles. In
solving social issues, it is crucial to employ a perspective that considers different angles in order to
maximize the efficiency of solutions to all members.
The Frankfurt school was a group of philosophers, sociologists, and social psychologists who
worked before and after the Second World War and was responsible for a concept now known as
critical theory. The critical theory, basically, proposed that in order to solve social and practical
problems, perspectives from different disciplines must be taken into consideration. It is characterized
by a deep reflection and an active process of taking and receiving of opinions from different areas of
study. It is practical, reflective, dynamic, and open. This means that in order for us to understand,
evaluate, and create good decisions for the members of our society, we ought to listen to them and
be open with their opinions and preferences. This suggests a greater possibility of better relationships
among individuals in a social system, which entails a transformation of each person for the better.
UNIT # 9: The Meaning of Being Human
One of the timeless questions in the history of Philosophy is about man’s humanity and
existence. Thousands of ideologies and religious beliefs have provided their explanations, to say
nothing of independent thinkers who have deviating and interesting answers. After all, human beings
live for decades and our race has established many successes around the world, and it is, indeed,
puzzling to know what it is all for. Billions of people have already died since the dawn of civilization,
many of them are names and lives that no person alive today would ever know or remember.
Furthermore, there is a great possibility that, some of us might belong to that category at some point
in the future. This is a fact that makes it understandable for human beings to crave meaning in their
lives. However, we also have the tendency to forget this sobering fact as brought upon by our busy
schedule, heavy tasks, and rushing lives. Thus, in this unit, we shall examine different philosophies
that look into what is means to be human.
Matthew is a young professional who graduated from college a few months ago. He believes
he has landed on a good job that provides him a great opportunity. When he graduated from college,
he promised himself to do everything he can in order to achieve his dreams. He made a list of things
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
he knew that would bring him to a flourishing life. More months have passed, Matthew noticed that his
hands are always mildly shaking even if he is not nervous or cold. He decided to consult a doctor who
gave him a series of tests. He was diagnosed with Huntington’s Chorea, a genetic neurodegenerative
disease that slowly progresses as the years pass. His life span was also cut short due to the slowly
dying nerves in his body. Matthew reflected on his life, and he decided to fulfill his dreams a bit earlier
than he expected. He had some regrets on things he hoped he’s done while he was younger. But, he
knew he was doing what he can to live a meaningful life.
Lesson 1: The Existentialists
The questions on human existence is timeless as we have faced thousands of situations that
made us reflect whether what we are doing has any meaning at all. However, as a formal school of
thought, Existentialism emerged in 19th -20th century. Some people call it a movement – a change of
perspective from a bigger one, and then focuses in minute and seemingly trivial actions of man that
allows him to recognize the impact and meaning of these actions on his life. Many thinkers have
advocated for a genuine life, and not just a mere existence, and in order to do so, we can recognize
how our actions and traits, no matter how insignificant, define us.
Existentialism is a school of thought that inquires on human existence, its purpose and
meaning, its end goals and objectives, and the free actions of man that contribute to himself and his
humanity. It is often classified into two: Theistic and Atheistic. Theistic Existentialism is concerned
with existential thoughts that include the discussion of a god or deity as the answer to the questions
of man’s existence and purpose. For theists, every person and everything has happened for a
reason, which means that everything has a purpose. This rests on the claim that there is a higher
being, a god or deity, who controls the universe and creates the universe’s purpose – that, in order to
fulfill his purpose for the universe, he created human beings. This suggests that man’s essence and
purpose came before he was born into the world, and that in order for his life to be meaningful, he
has to fulfill his essence. Thus, theistic existentialism exemplifies the maxim, “essence precedes
existence”, which means that man’s essence came first before his existence.
Atheistic Existentialism, on the other hand, is secular and leaves all the quest for meaning into
man’s actions alone. Atheistic Existentialism is more prominent as one of the focus is man’s
individuality and his free actions that produce both his identity and responsibilities.
The most renowned Existential philosopher was the French writer Jean-Paul Sartre. As has
been discussed in a previous chapter, Sartre and his generation experienced the horrors of a war.
Before the wars broke out, the people’s focus is more on the society and a harmonious relationship
between people. It is important to be able to contribute for the good of the community. People were
characterized with honor, gallantry, and traits that allowed them to sacrifice themselves and their
individualities for the good of the majority. However, when wars broke out, the people, especially the
younger generations were exposed to many young deaths. They have eventually focused their
attention to each of their own lives and individuality. The realization that life is short and could even
be shorter because of the wars has fallen into their heads. Although there are already existential
ideas before these events, Existentialism grew more popular under these dire circumstances. Sartre
and other philosophers who authored on Existentialism wrote in a more striking manner which
contributed to the fame of the idea.
According to Sartre and other atheistic existential philosophers, “existence precedes essence”.
This means that one’s existence came before his meaning. Without any reference to a higher being,
Sartre believed that man is thrown into the world without any prior purpose. We are thrown into
situations we did not choose like who would our parents be, whether we are going to be born rich or
poor, or male or female, or a Filipino or French. We just existed, we were just born into the world.
Even if we did not choose the circumstances of our birth, Sartre believed that we are free to make our
choices from that standpoint. After being thrown into the world, we can proceed into creating our own
essence and purpose through exercising our freedom. This suggests that we are the master of our
own fate, and that everything happened into our lives was entirely because of our own work. This
puts us in a position of responsibility, we are all responsible for what the meaning of our own life
would be.
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
In many parts of the world, people go to church or proceed into a belief which they think would
provide meaning into their lives – whether in theistic or atheistic terms. However, in the East, Zen, a
Japanese term for the school of the Mahayana Buddhism from China (with the Chinese term, chán),
mainly advocates for a personal understanding and pursuit of truth instead of relying on doctrines and
orthodoxies. This is achieved through zazen – a practice of meditation, which would allow its
practitioner to clear and empty his mind to see and perceive the world as it is.
The Japanese Kyoto School philosopher, Keiji Nishitani, had set his idea on Śūnyatā, a
Sanskrit term for “emptiness”. For Nishitani, there is really no objective meaning into the activities we
fulfill in our lives – that the purpose of everything we do is “nothing”. He may observed this on the
effects of an industrial world. Every person is busy with his own work and everything becomes a
routine, wherein the meaning and values of each activity and relationship is lost. However, this
concept of emptiness is not something that is needed to be reversed or filled with activities and
meaningful reflection. This means stripping our minds of its preconceived notions of meaning about
the world, by seeing it bare and as it is. In our empty minds that do not contain a bias towards a
certain belief, we would be able to see things without a shroud that would allow us to have a true and
intimate experience of the world as it is. Through his work, Nishitani was able to synthesize Western
and Eastern ideologies.
Human beings in any part of the world may have varying versions of how they provide essence
into their lives. It can be through religion, meditation, reflection, or activities like travelling, creating
music, training for a sport, volunteering for a cause, etc. However, meaningful or meaningless lives
are, whether we would have a union with God in the afterlife or not, one thing is certain: we have a
contribution to our essence in this life, and we could create our meaning into it through our choices,
actions, and relationships.
Lesson 2: The Search for Meaning
All people live their lives, at least at some point, searching for meaning. Some take a few years
to find it, while others take a whole lifetime. Some yearn adventures, some go to the other side of the
world, while others rely on their personal and day-to-day activities. Some people live through the
maxim, carpe diem, they seize the day and live in every precious moment, others live through c’est la
vie, and accept life’s absurdities without losing their resolve. In the many ways of how we live our
lives as we do, we are all in this quest to search for meaning.
The Danish Christian philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, is regarded as the first existential
philosopher. He was mainly a theologian who encouraged a personal relationship with God through
one’s faith rather than following rituals and other practices of the church. Thus, his existential
philosophy is a theistic one. According to Kierkegaard, man goes through life in three stages:
Aesthetic, Ethical, and Religious. In these stages, man goes through a series of events that make him
happy and that which provide meaning in his life.
In the Aesthetic stage, man is attracted to things that provide beauty and pleasure. It can be
said that in this stage, man mainly follows his desires, and finds meaning in activities that satiates his
pleasures. However, Kierkegaard thought that following one’s desires cannot provide man with any
lasting meaning, as our desires may be inconsistent and fleeting. The Aesthetic stage is mainly the
stage where children are, their desires only lasts temporarily – fond of one toy, but when sees
another, discards the prior one. Thus, extracting meaning from our desires and pleasures does not
guarantee genuine meaning and happiness.
In the Ethical Stage, man has matured and can view the impact of his actions not only in
himself, but also to his society. Our society and the organizations in it, like the school, the church, and
the government, teaches us to behave in a moral way. And fulfilling our roles as a child, spouse,
employee / employer, or citizen provide us a meaningful existence. In the Ethical stage, we extract
the meaning by living a harmonious relationship with the people around us, and take solace from
being able to live a rich and fulfilling life.
In the Religious Stage, man can find meaning through personal relationship with God,
characterized with faith and obedience to His will. For Kierkegaard, only a pursuit for a union with
God that man can find the ultimate meaning of his life. Also, Kierkegaard believed that faith like
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
Abraham’s, when he was asked by God to sacrifice his son, is the kind of faith that would answer
man’s yearning for an ultimate meaning in the life he lives.
While theistic existentialism draws the meaning of life through faith, religion, and belief in God,
there is another side of Existentialism. Nihilism came from the Latin word, nihil, which translates to
“nothing”. Existential nihilism is the belief that life has no inherent, ultimate meaning, and it is futile for
any attempt to find one. Existential nihilism rejects the idea of a higher being that provides purpose to
man’s life. Basically, it purports that man is born, eventually he will die, and there is nothingness in it.
There is no ultimate purpose or afterlife. However, while Existential nihilists maintain that we cannot
find an objective meaning to life, we can actually create a subjective one. This suggests that even if
there is no purpose to our existence, human beings can still develop and create personal meaning
from their activities and relationships, which would encourage him to go on living and creating his own
happiness.
We often equate a meaningful life to a happy life, and we draw our meaning and purpose on
things, events, activities, or people that makes us happy. The Russian writer and philosopher, Leo
Tolstoy, once wrote that a life characterized with peaceful and quiet union with nature, books, music,
is a life that can do good to one’s neighbor, and a life with the people you love – is a life full of
happiness and meaning.
In Eastern thought, the ancient Chinese philosophy of Taoism taught by Lao-Tzu holds the
idea that there is an invisible, ever-present force in the world, the Tao. It is shapeless, timeless, and it
regulates the universe and everything that happens in it. Taoism basically teaches the principle of
Wei Wu Wei, which means, non-doing. The principle of Wei Wu Wei is almost similar to that of Zen –
to rid oneself of preconceived notions, bias, and other previously held beliefs in order to clearly
realize the Tao. In a fast-paced world that we have today, Taoism encourages us to be still, to pause,
observe, and look at the world as it is. Only then, through Wu Wei, that we can be with the Tao. Even
in pursuit of happiness and meaning, Taoism’s basic teaching lies with the method of Wei Wu Wei. It
advocates reflection of what really lies in one’s heart, and being true to oneself. This entails the idea
of self-knowledge – that, in order for us to realize our meaning and happiness, we should stop and
reflect on ourselves and the world we live in. Furthermore, this implies that the meaning we are
searching for and the happiness we are seeking are already within ourselves.
Lesson 3: Our Purpose
Human beings have constantly sought their purpose, whether as a race, or as an individual.
This is because, at some point in our lives, we get to realize that we are all mortals. And if we are
going to leave the world at some point in time, we feel like we have to make the most of our short
lives. In this lesson, we shall talk about one of the greatest realities of life and one of the greatest
mysteries to different philosophers, existentialists, believers and non-believers. This is the great
reality where we are all headed towards: death.
Our definition of our purpose depends on how we perceive the finality of our natural life. Thus,
in order to understand what human beings are for, and why we are alive, we ought to acknowledge
that we can experience death – that no one is exempted whatever one’s status in life is. There have
been religious and non-religious perspectives on death, although the religious beliefs dominate the
world in varying ideals.
The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer urged us to look at the phenomenon in a larger
perspective. From a distant viewpoint, Schopenhauer believed that death is the cessation of
consciousness comparable to that of a deep sleep, but never waking up. He looked at death as the
return of human beings to where they were before their birth –it is the primary purpose of life, and that
everyday existence is a step-by-step path towards dying. Thus, he’d seen life and death, not as
opposites, but more of a complement to each other.
When a person dies, his family, relatives, and community organize a certain ceremony in
accordance to their beliefs. There are various practices that reflect a certain view pertaining to death
as something supernatural, sacred, mystical, or unearthly. This, then, reveals that for most people in
the world, death is a mystery. It is an understandable perception, since no one dead has come back
to life to tell us what happened or where he went when he died. Thus, human beings were left to
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person Lecture Notes
speculate on their own as to what happens upon someone’s departure – some thought of an afterlife,
others believed in reincarnation, and so on. The following are the major religions’ concept of death.
In the Christian perspective, man’s purpose is provided by God. It is believed that God gave
man a mission to fulfill on Earth, which man should discover and accomplish. Upon the
accomplishment of God’s purpose, man dies in this world and unites with God in the afterlife. In
heaven, a man can claim his reward of an everlasting life due to man’s fulfilled and successful
purpose while he was in this world. Thus, our purpose, in the doctrines of Christianity, is to find God’s
will and obey it. Although the family and loved ones of the departed mourn their loss, Christian
teachings express joy in death as it is seen as a union with God in an eternal and peaceful life.
In Islam, death is seen as a transition of the soul from this world to the next, and that man’s life
in this world is a preparation and a test for afterlife. The Islamic tradition teaches that an angel of
death comes to get the soul of a dying person. The way of obtaining it depends on whether the
person lived righteously or wrongly. If he lived righteously, his soul will be removed painlessly by the
angel, but if he lived sinfully, his soul will be removed painfully. Unlike in Christianity, Muslims view
death as an unhappy and painful event.
In Hinduism, death is a highly-spiritual phenomenon they call mahaprasthaana, which
translates to ‘the great departure”. Hindus believe in atman (soul or spirit) which is a permanent
component of a human being. His physical body, on the other hand, is impermanent that may change
and decay. Upon death, the atman is reborn into a different body. This is a process of samsara
(reincarnation). Man’s purpose, then, is to learn the valuable lessons in the life he is currently living,
and when he has learned all he can, the atman is ready to leave the body to proceed to another one.
Death is viewed as a natural process in Hinduism.
Buddhists also believe in samsara or reincarnation. They also teach that there is dukkha
(suffering) which is caused by our earthly desires and materialism. In order to reduce one’s suffering
and be enlightened with our purpose, Buddhists teach of their eight-fold path:
1. Right understanding
2. Right thoughts
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right meditation

Through a pursuit of these paths, one would reach nirvana (cessation of suffering) and a meaningful
life. Nirvana is not necessarily a different realm, but a state of being free from pain and suffering.
There are also secular beliefs that do not adhere to a certain set of practices or rituals.
Scientists, upon a laborious study of the universe, has not found an evidence of an afterlife, which
leads to a conclusion that there is not any. Death, then, is viewed in the naturalistic sense, as the
finality of life – it is not a transition from one realm to another, nor a transfer from one body to another.
There is no promise that we would still meet each other once we die. They believe that there is
only one life and this is it. Life, therefore, ultimately ends upon death. Where does man’s purpose
come from, then? This secular belief purports that man has no inherent, objective purpose. This may
have a touch of nihilism that there is no objective meaning to man’s existence. However, it can be
deduced that man can create his purpose, on his own, which could provide him a meaningful
existence.