MODULE 1

Defining the Self: Personal and

different perspectives – philosophical, sociological, anthropological, and psychological

views. This also includes the differing of East and West about the self.

To measure your learning, a set of exercises will be answered by you to evaluate

how much you understand the lessons.

In this module you are expected to:

- Explain why it is essential to understand the self;

- Discuss the different notions of the self from the points of view of various

philosophers across time and place;

- Explain the different ways by which society and culture shape the “self”;

- Analyze the effects of various factors identified in psychology in the formation of

the “self”

- Examine one’s self against the different views of the self.

Page 1 of 25
 Module 1.1:
The Self from Various Philosophical Perspectives

At the end of the session, you will be able to:

1. Explain why it is essential to understand the self;

2. Discuss the different notions of the self from the points of view of various

philosophers across time and place;

3. Examine one’s self against the different views of the self.

Do this:

Words that Describe Me

Page 2 of 25
What makes you stand out from the rest?

Your Personal Identity

“Who are you?”

Page 3 of 25
Your Personal Identity

“Who are you?”

Page 4 of 25
 A Portrait of Yourself

 The best thing(s) I ever did was (were) ______________________________________.

 I wish I could lose my fear of ______________________________________________.

 I know I have the talent to ________________________________________________.

 I enjoy people who ______________________________________________________.

 I admire _______________________________________________________________.

 I feel most productive when _______________________________________________.

 I am motivated by _______________________________________________________.

 I almost never __________________________________________________________.

 My idea of fun is ________________________________________________________.

 Work is exciting when ____________________________________________________.

 The best advice I ever got was _____________________________________________.

 The thing I value most is __________________________________________________.

 If money were no object, I would ___________________________________________.

 It is easy for me to focus on _______________________________________________.

Page 5 of 25
 My idea of a perfect life is _________________________________________________.

 My best days are ________________________________________________________.

 My dream is ____________________________________________________________.

 I always wanted to ______________________________________________________.

 I look forward to ________________________________________________________.

 I spent too much time ____________________________________________________.

 The thing my friends like about me is ________________________________________.

 When I try to change something ____________________________________________.

 In a group I like to _______________________________________________________.

 If I ever win a prize it will be for ____________________________________________.

Page 6 of 25
 Changes in our Lives

Think about an important change you made in your life.

1. Describe the change.

2. What were you thinking going through the change?

3. How were you feeling before, during, and after you made the change?

Page 7 of 25
 How is your “self” connected to your body?

How is your “self” related to other selves?

What will happen to your “self” after you die?

Page 8 of 25
Analysis

Were you able to answer the questions above easily? Why? Which questions did

you find easy to answer? Which ones are difficult? Why?

Questions Easy or Why?

Page 9 of 25
 Let us learn!

THE SELF FROM VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES

The various perspectives and views on the self can be best understood by revisiting

and identifying the most important speculations made by philosophers from the ancient

times to the contemporary period.

Socrates and Plato

Pre-Socratic (before the time of Plato) Greek thinkers were preoccupied with the

question about the primary substratum, “arché”, that explains the multiciplicity of things

in the world. These were the Pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales, Heraclitus, and

Empedocles, who were concerned with explaining what the world is really made of, why

the world is so, and what explains the changes that they observed around them.

After a series of thinkers from all across the ancient Greek world who were curious

by the same questions, a man came out to question something else. That man is Socrates.

He is the first philosopher to ever engaged in a systematic questioning about the self.

Page 10 of 25
 This has become his life-long mission. To

him, the true mission of a philosopher is to

know oneself.

During his trial for allegedly corrupting

the minds of the youth and for impiety,

Socrates declared without regret that his

being accused was brought about by his

going around Athens engaging men, young

and old, asking their beliefs about themselves

and about the world, particularly about who they are (Plato, 2012). He considered himself

as the “gadfly” that interrupts Athenian men from their rest and shakes them off in order

to reach the truth and wisdom. In his reckoning, most men were not fully aware of who

they were and the virtues that they were supposed to have in order to preserve their

souls for afterlife. He thought that it is the worst that can happen to anyone. To live but

die inside.

For Socrates, every man is composed of body and soul which is supposed to mean

that every human person is dualistic – composed of two important aspects of his

personhood. This means that all individuals have an imperfect, impermanent aspect, the

body, while maintaining that there is a soul that is perfect and permanent.

Plato, a student of Socrates, supported the idea that man is a dual nature of body

and soul. He added that there are three components to the soul. In his magnum opus,

Page 11 of 25
 The Republic (Plato 2000), he emphasized that

justice in the human person can only be achieved if

the three parts of the soul are working harmoniously

with one another.

• Rational soul – forged by reason and

intellect has to govern the affairs of the human

person;

• Spirited soul – in charge of emotions, should be kept at bay;

• Appetitive soul – in charge of base desires like eating, drinking, sleeping,

and having sexual intercourse, is controlled as well.

When this ideal state is attained, the human person’s soul becomes just and

virtuous.

Page 12 of 25
Augustine and Thomas Aquinas

Augustine’s view of the human person reflects the

spirit of the medieval world during that time. Following the

ancient view of Plato and infusing it with the newfound

doctrine of Christianity, Augustine agreed that man is a

bifurcated nature. There is an aspect of man which dwells in

the world that is imperfect and continuously longing to be

with the divine while the other is capable of reaching

immortality. The body is bound to die on earth and the soul

is to live eternally in a realm of spiritual bliss in communion

with God. The goal of every human person is to attain this communion and bliss with the

Divine by living his life on earth in virtue.

Early in his philosophical development, he describes the body as a “snare” and a

“cage” for the soul. He considers the body a “slave” to the soul, and sees their relation

as contentious: “The soul makes war with the body.” As his thinking matured, Augustine

sought to develop a more unified perspective on body and soul. He ultimately came to

view the body as the “spouse” of the soul, with both attached to one another by a “natural

appetite.” He concludes, “That the body is united with the soul, so that man may be

entire and complete, is a fact we recognize on the evidence of our own nature.”

Thomas Aquinas, attached something to this Christian view. He said that indeed

man is composed of two parts: matter and form.

Page 13 of 25
 • Matter, or hyle in Greek, - common stuff that

makes up everything in the universe.

• Form, or morphe in Greek, - the essence of

a substance or thing

In the case of the human person, the body is

something that we share even with animals. The

cells in our body is more or less same to the cells of

any other living, organic being in the world. The body is part of the matter that Aquinas

is pointing out. However, what makes a human person a human and not a dog or any

other animal is our soul, and that is our essence. The soul is what emanates the body, it

is what makes us human.

From this perspective, Aquinas views persons as material substances whose souls

emerge from the unified relationship of form and prime matter. So rather than beginning

life with a self-comprised of a material body and an immaterial soul, Aquinas believes

that life begins with the inseparable union of form and matter, gradually giving rise to

the conscious self as we know it. And in the same way that a mold pressed onto warm

wax creates a unified formal whole, so the substantive form encountering matter creates

a unified self that cannot be separated into discreet entities, unlike Plato’s (and

Augustine’s) dualistic soul and body. For Aquinas, human beings are living bodies with

certain distinguishable potentiae: powers, abilities, or capacities. The Latin for “soul” is

anima, and Aquinas believes that every living thing has a soul since the soul is the

principle of life—that is, what distinguishes a living (animate) thing from a nonliving

Page 14 of 25
(inanimate) thing. You are alive because you have a soul. The soul actualizes and

transforms matter into a living body by acting on appropriate quantities and qualities in

order to constitute a new substance, which is a case of emergence. The key to

understanding Aquinas’s position on human persons as emergent material substances is

his claim that the human soul is the substantial form of the human being. But if the form

and the body are so closely connected in creating the “personhood” of the individual,

what happens to the form when the body can no longer function? Aquinas would agree

with others that natural life for the soul ends with the life for the body.

Descartes

Rene Descartes was known to be the

Father of Modern Philosophy. He was the one

to conceived that the human person has a body

and a mind. In his famous treatise, The

Meditations of First Philosophy, he claimed that

there is so much that we should doubt and that

much of what we think and believe, because they are not infallible, may turn out to be

false. “One should only believe that which can pass the test of doubt. If something is so

clear and lucid to be even doubted, then that is the only time when one should actually

buy a proposition” (Descartes 2008).

Descartes thought that the only thing that one cannot doubt is the existence of

the self. For even if one doubts oneself, that only proves that there is a doubting self, a

Page 15 of 25
thing that thinks and therefore that cannot be doubted. Thus, his famous cognito ergo

sum or I think therefore, I am.

The ‘self’ then for Descartes is a combination of two distinct entities:

• Cognito or the thing that thinks which is the mind

• Extenza or extension of the mind which is the body

In Descartes’ view, the body is nothing but a machine that is attached to the mind.

The human person has it but it is not what makes man a man. If at all, that is the mind.

“But what then, am I? A thinking thing. It has been said. But what is a thinking
thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands (conceives), affirms, denies, wills,
refuses; that imagines also, and perceives” (Descartes, 2008).

Hume

David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, has

a very unique way of looking at a man. He

argued that self is nothing like what his

antecedents thought of it. As an empiricist, he

believed that one can only know what comes

from the senses and experience. The self is not

an entity over and beyond the physical body.

Empiricism is the school of thought that promotes the idea that knowledge can

only be possible if it is sensed and experienced. Men can only attain knowledge by

experiencing. Ex. Jack knows that Jill is another human person not because he has seen

her soul but because he sees her, hears her, and touches her. To him, the self is nothing

Page 16 of 25
else but a “bundle of impressions”. For David Hume, if one attempts to examine his

experiences, he finds that they can all be categorized into two: impressions and ideas.

• Impressions – are the basic object of our experience or sensation and

therefore form the core of our thoughts. Example, when one touches an ice

cube, the cold sensation is an impression. They are vivid because they are

products of our direct experience with the world.

• Ideas – are copies of impressions. They are not as vivid and lively as our

impressions. Just like when one imagines the feeling of being in love for the

first time, that still is an idea.

Self, according to Hume, is simply “a bundle or collection of different perceptions,

which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity and are in a perpetual flux and

movement” (Hume and Steinberg, 1992, as cited in Alata, Caslib Jr, Searfica J, Pawilen

R, 2018).

Kant

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant helped create

the conceptual scaffolding of modern consciousness in the

areas of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Kant was

alarmed by David Hume’s notion that the mind is simply a

container for fleeting sensations and disconnected ideas, and

our reasoning ability is merely “a slave to the passions.” If

Hume’s views proved true, then humans would never be able

Page 17 of 25
to achieve genuine knowledge in any area of experience: scientific, ethical, religious, or

metaphysical, including questions such as the nature of our selves. For Kant, Hume’s

devastating conclusions served as a Socratic “gadfly” to his spirit of inquiry, awakening

him from his intellectual sleep and galvanizing him to action.

Kant observes an obvious fact that Hume seems to have overlooked, namely, that

our primary experience of the world is not in terms of a disconnected stream of

sensations. Instead, we perceive and experience an organized world of objects,

relationships, and ideas, all existing within a fairly stable framework of space and time.

True, at times discreet and randomly related sensations dominate our experience: for

example, when we are startled out of a deep sleep and “don’t know where we are,” or

when a high fever creates bizarre hallucinations, or the instant when an unexpected

thunderous noise or blinding light suddenly dominates our awareness. But in general, we

live in a fairly stable and orderly world in which sensations are woven together into a

fabric that is familiar to us. And integrated throughout this fabric is our conscious self

who is the knowing subject at the center of our universe.

Where does the order and organization of our world come from? According to

Kant, it comes in large measure from us. Our minds actively sort, organize, relate, and

synthesize the fragmented, fluctuating collection of sense data that our sense organs

take in. For example, imagine that someone dumped a pile of puzzle pieces on the table

in front of you. They would initially appear to be a random collection of items, unrelated

to one another and containing no meaning for you, much like the basic sensations of

immediate unreflective experience. However, as you began to assemble the pieces, these

Page 18 of 25
fragmentary items would gradually begin to form a coherent image that would have

significance for you. According to Kant, this meaning-constructing activity is precisely

what our minds are doing all of the time: taking the raw data of experience and actively

synthesizing it into the familiar, orderly, meaningful world in which we live. As you might

imagine, this mental process is astonishing in its power and complexity, and it is going

on all of the time.

How do our minds know the best way to construct an intelligible world out of a

never-ending avalanche of sensations? We each have fundamental organizing rules or

principles built into the architecture of our minds. These dynamic principles naturally

order, categorize, organize, and synthesize sense data into the familiar fabric of our lives,

bounded by space and time. These organizing rules are a priori in the sense that they

precede the sensations of experience and they exist independently of these sensations.

We didn’t have to “learn” these a priori ways of organizing and relating the world—they

came as software already installed in our intellectual operating systems.

Ryle

Gilbert Ryle is a British philosopher whose book, The

Concept of Mind, had a dramatic impact on Western

thought. Ryle’s behaviorism was a different sort from that

of psychology. He thought of his approach as a logical

behaviorism, focused on creating conceptual clarity, not on

Page 19 of 25
developing techniques to condition and manipulate human behavior.

Gilbert Ryle resolves the mind-body dichotomy that has been running for a long

time in the history of thought by blatantly denying the concept of an internal, non-physical

self. For him, what really matters are the behaviors that a person displays in his day-to-

day life.

According to Ryle, human bodies are in space and are subject to the mechanical

laws which govern all other bodies in space and are accessible to external observers. But

minds are not in space, their operations are not subject to mechanical laws, and the

processes of the mind are not accessible to other people—it’s career is private. Only I am

able to perceive and experience the states and processes of my own mind. In Ryles

words: “A person therefore lives through two collateral histories, one consisting of what

happens in and to his body, and other consisting of what happens in and to his mind.

The first is public, the second private.”

In our everyday experience, we act and speak as if we have much more direct

knowledge of other minds and what they’re thinking without having to go through this

tortured and artificial reasoning process. We encounter others, experience the totality of

their behavior, and believe that this behavior reveals directly “who” they are and what

they’re thinking.

Imagine that an acquaintance from a distant country come to visit you, eager to

see the University you attend, which you are delighted to share with him. You take him

first to the main administrative building including the Director’s office; to several classes

that are in session; the library and student union; athletic facilities including a basketball

Page 20 of 25
game being played, and so on. At the conclusion of your tour, your friend thanks you and

says: That was a very interesting tour: But why didn’t you introduce me to the University?

I saw the administrative offices, several classes in session, the library and student union,

the athletic facilities with a basketball game in process, and other parts beside: But you

didn’t show me the University! You would no doubt endeavor to explain that “the

University” is not another collateral part of the University, some ulterior counterpart to

what he has seen. Instead, the University includes all of the parts of the University as

well as the way in which they are organized. His mistake lay in his innocent assumption

that it was correct to speak as if “the University” stood for an extra member of the class

of which the other parts of the College are members. He was mistakenly allocating the

University to the same category as that to which the constitutive parts of the University

belong.

Ryle proposes that the self is not an entity one can locate and analyze but simply

the convenient name that people can use to refer to all the behaviors that people make.

Merleau-Ponty

Maurice Merleau-Ponty is a phenomenologist who asserts that

the mind-body dichotomy is a pointless endeavor and invalid

problem. Phenomenology refers to the conviction that all

knowledge of ourselves and our world is based on the

“phenomena” of experience.

Page 21 of 25
 He articulated the phenomenologist position in a simple declaration: “I live in my

body.” By the “lived body,” Merleau-Ponty means an entity that can never be objectified

or known in a completely objective sort of way, as opposed to the “body as object” of

the dualists. For example, when you first wake up in the morning and experience your

gradually expanding awareness of where you are and how you feel, what are your first

thoughts of the day? Perhaps something along the lines of “Oh no, it’s time to get up,

but I’m still sleepy, but I have an important appointment that I can’t be late for” and so

on. Note that at no point do you doubt that the “I” you refer to is a single integrated

entity, a blending of mental, physical, and emotional structured around a core identity:

your self. It’s only later, when you’re reading Descartes or discussing the possibility

of reincarnation with a friend that you begin creating ideas such as independent “minds,”

“bodies,” “souls,” or, in the case of Freud, an “unconscious.”

As Merleau-Ponty explains, “There is not a duality of substances but only the

dialectic of living being in its biological milieu.” In other words, our “living body” is a

natural synthesis of mind and biology, and any attempts to divide them into separate

entities are artificial and nonsensical. For him, one cannot find any experience that is not

an embodied experience. For him, the living body, his thoughts, emotions, and

experiences are all one.

Page 22 of 25
 Questions and answers!

A. Today you are going to be a philosopher, as a philosopher you are going

to synthesize the readings above and come up with your own definition

of the ‘self’ based on what and whose idea you believe to and adhere to

the most. Choose your personal ‘philosopher name’ and put it at the end

of your definition.

Page 23 of 25
B. Direction: Make a table like the one below. Complete the table (column

2) by writing the ideas on the self of the philosopher and (column 3)

writing your reaction or comment of the said idea – state whether you

agree, disagree, partially agree and your explanation. Make it brief and

direct to the point.

Philosopher Idea on the Self Your Point of View (POV)

Page 24 of 25
Alata, Eden Joy Pastor, Bernardo Nicolas Caslib Jr, Janice Patria Javier Serafica, and R A
Pawilen. 2018. Understanding the Self. Sampaloc, Manila: Rex Bookstore.

Chafee, J. 2016. The Philosophers Way. 5th edition.

Page 25 of 25