Philosophical

Approaches to the
study of Man
1.0 Ancient Greek : Cosmocentric Approach
1.1 The Greek were concerned with the
Nature and Order of the Universe.
1.2 Man was part of the cosmos, a
microcosm. So like the Universe, Man is made
up of Matter (body) and Form (soul).
1.3 Man must maintain the balance and unity
with the cosmos.
2.0 Medieval ( Christian era: St. Augustine, St
Thomas Aquinas ) Theocentric Approach
2.1 Man is understood as from the point of
view of God, as a creature of God, made in
His image and likeness, and therefore the
apex of His creation.
3.0 Modern ( Descartes, Kant) Anthropocentric Approach

3.1 Man is now understood in his own terms, but basically on

reason, thus rationalistic.

4.0 Contemporary Philosophies arose as a reaction against

Hegel.

4.1 One reaction is Marx who criticized Hegels geist, spirit,

mind and brought out his dialectical materialism.

4.2 Another reaction is Soren Kierkegaard who was against

the system of Hegel and emphasized the individual and his
direct relationship with God. Kierkegaard led the
existentialist movement which became popular after the two
world wars.
EXISTENTIALISM AND MAN SEARCH FOR
MEANING

By Manuel B. Dy Jr.
What is the
meaning of
LIFE?
1.0 The father of Existentialism is a Danish
Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard ( 1813-1855 )
1.1 Three events in Kierkegaards life
influence his philosophy:
a. unhappy childhood, strict upbringing
by his father
b. break-up with the woman he loved
c. quarrel with a university professor
1.2 These events and his criticism of the
rationalistic Hegelian system led him to
emphsize the individual and feelings.
1.3 The aim of Kierkegaard is to awaken his
people to the true meaning of Christianity.

1.4 Two ways to achieve his aim: a. the

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

1.4.1. example 1: two ways to help a friend

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

1.5. Kierkegaard chose the indirect way and

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

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

1.8 The highest stage is the religious, where the individual stands
in direct immediate relation ( no intermediary ) with God.

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

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

2.1 There are many different

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

Soren Kierkegaard Albert Camus

Karl Jaspers Jean Paul Sartre
Gabriel Marcel Maurice Merleau
Ponty

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

2.4.2 Man is both Subject and Object, as can be shown in

reflexive acts (e.g I brush myself, I wash myself, I slap myself)
where there is the object-me(changing and divisible) and the
subject-I (permanent and indivisible).

2.4.3 The existentialists, however, while not denying the reality

of man as object, emphasize the Subjectivity of man, of man as
unique, irreducible, irreplaceable, unrepeatable being. E.g. as a
passenger in a crowded bus, I am treated like a baggage, but I
am more than that.
 2.4.5 The subjective must not be confused with
subjectivism or being subjectivistic.
2.4.6 The subjective merely affirms the importance of
man as origin of meaning (in contrast to the emphasis
of ancient & medieval periods on truth)
e.g. God , not the object proven but God-for-me.
e.g. values both objective and subjective (value-for-
me)
2.5 Thirdly, existentialists stress mans existence,
man as situatedness, which takes on different
meaning for each existentialist.
2.5.1 for Kierkegaard, existence is to be directly
related to God in fear and trembling.
 2.5.2 For Heidegger, existence is Dasein, There-being,
being thrown into the world as self-project.
2.5.3 For Jaspers, to exist is not only to determine
ones own being horizontally but also vertically, to
realize oneself before God.
2.5.4 For Marcel, esse est co-esse,to exist is to co-
exist, to participate in the life of the other.
2.5.5 For Sartre, to exist is to be free.
2.5.6 For Merleau-Ponty, to exist is to give meaning.
2.5.7 For Camus, to exist is to live in absurdity.
 2.6 Fourthly, existentialists stress on freedom which
means differently for each existentialist.
2.6.1 For Kierkegaard, to be free is to move from
aesthetic stage to ethical to religious.
2.6.2 For Heidegger, to be free is to transcend oneself
in time.
2.6.3 For Sartre, to be free is to be absolutely
determine of oneself without God.
2.6.4 For Marcel, to be free is to say yes to Being,
to pass from having to being in love.
 2.7 Fifth, Existentialists propagate authentic
existence versus inauthentic existence.
2.7.1 Inauthentic existence is living the impersonal
they in the crowd, in bad faith (half conscious,
unreflective)e.g. Detranger of Camus, functionalized
man of Marcel, monologue of Buber.
2.7.2 Authentic existence is free, personal
commitment to a project, cause, truth, value. To live
authentically is to be response-able.
2.8 All existentialists make use of the
PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD which does not explain
deductively or inductively but simply describes the
experience of man as he actually lives it.