MODULE

in

PHILOSOPHY OF
MAN

Page 1 of 29
 Course Title: Philosophy of Man
Course Code: HUM 102
Units: 3

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This course examines man’s search for meaning within the totality of his
phenomenological experiences. Looking at various theories of different philosophers regarding
man. The course will attempt to provide an introduction to philosophy, the science of the ultimate
whys and wherefore of all things with man as the key point and the prenominal theme of
discussion.

II. COURSE OBJECTIVES:

At the end of this module, the students should be able to:

a. Reflect on their daily experiences from a holistic point of view;
b. Acquire critical and analytical thinking skills;
c. Apply their critical thinking skill to the affairs of daily life;
d. Become truthful, environment friendly and service – oriented;
e. Actively committed to the development of a more humane society;
f. Articulate their own philosophy of life; and
g. Understand the human person as an embodied spirit.

III. COURSE OUTLINE:

 Lesson 1 - Man and Philosophy

 Lesson 2 - The Embodied – Spirit Called Man
 Lesson 3 - The Nature of Man
 Lesson 4 - The Origin of Man
 Lesson 5 - Man and Freedom
 Lesson 6 - Man and the Other
 Lesson 7 - Man and Suffering
 Lesson 8 - Man and Death
 Lesson 9 - Man and the Absolute

IV. ASSESSMENT RUBRICS:

QUIZZES 15%
CLASS PARTICIPATION 20%
REFLECTION PAPER 15 %
DEPORTMENT 10%
EXAMS 40%

TOTAL: 100%

Page 2 of 29
I. MAIN TOPIC:

Lesson 1: Man and Philosophy

II. LESSON OBJECTIVES:

At the end of the 90 – minute lesson, the students are expected to:
1. define Philosophy;
2. define inherited knowledge;
3. explain why man blindly follow communal traditions, customs, and beliefs;
4. explain why philosophy liberate man;
5. explain the methods and branches of philosophy; and
6. appreciate the value of philosophy in their life.

III. INTRODUCTORY ACTIVITY / THINKING TIME / MOTIVATION:

Try answering this:
Check your option for answering:
Online
Offline

1. What is your philosophy in life?

2. Use the letters of the word “PHILOSOPHY“ to describe yourself.
(Example: P – patient)

IV. LESSON PROPER:

LESSON 1 - THE MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy, literally “love of wisdom”, has acquired varied definitions through time from
different minds of different cultures and learnings. Aristotle, as cited by Brightman (1963), defined
philosophy as thinking which aims at maximum connected truth about all available experience.
Philosophy aims to explore connections of all accessible experience as exhaustibly and
comprehensively as possible. Embuido, (2002) cited that for the Romans, philosophy is the science
of divine things and their causes; and, that for the philosophers of the Medieval Period, it embraces
all sciences only by the light of reason without recourse to supernatural revelation. The Scholastics,
as explained by Bittle (1948), claimed that philosophy is the science of beings in their ultimate
reasons, causes, and principles as acquired by the aid of human reason alone. Philosophy studies
and investigates, through reason alone, all things which the human mind can apprehend, that is,
anything that exists, is going to exist, can be thought of, or is known.

Titus and Smith (1974) defined philosophy in four ways. First, it is a personal attitude
towards life and the universe. Second, it is a method of reflective thinking and reasoned inquiry.
Third, it is the logical analysis of language and the clarification of the meaning of words and
concepts. Lastly, it is a group of problems as well as theories about the solution of these problems.

THE QUEST FOR MEANING

Page 3 of 29
 It is evident that philosophy has varied meanings for different thinkers, philosophers,
and authors. Nonetheless, these authorities agree that philosophy is a field of endeavour
concerned with the problem about the meaning of human life and the significance of the world
which man finds himself. In the writings of Randall and Buchler (1971),

There is a general agreement on the type of problems with which wisdom,

and hence philosophy, is centrally concerned. They are those which raise the
question of the meaning of human life, and the significance of the world in
which man finds himself. What is the general nature of the universe in which
human life has its setting, in so far as that has a bearing on human destiny?
And what is that destiny itself? How can man affect it by his own actions; and,
within the limits of his choosing, what activities and pursuits should he follow
What kind of life is most worthwhile leading, individually and collectively?

Conformably, philosophy is the quest for the meaning of human life.

THE INEHERITED KNOWLEDGE

Man has knowledge of himself. His immediate response to questions thrown or raised
on him bears witness to this. Ask him who he is and immediately he has a reply. Ask him whether
he is free or not and within a second he has uttered something in answer to the question. Ask him
about the soul, within a couple of moments he has arguments carrying his answer.

Likewise, his behaviors and actuations show that he has knowledge of himself. He does
not ask himself who he is. This manifest that he knows who he is. He does not ask himself what he
is made of. This mirrors that he knows what he is made of.

The knowledge which man has about him came from the society where he was born and
reared. He inherited it from the society through the family, the school, the church, his peers and
other groups. The theories of different psychologists demonstrate how he acquired the knowledge.
One psychologist demonstrated that man acquires his knowledge through conditioning. Man is
conditioned in his thinking and in his behaviour. Every behaviour and knowledge which he exhibits
are results of the conditioning by the society of him. Man’s knowledge, therefore, is inherited
knowledge or acquired knowledge.

Furthermore, man acquired his knowledge blindly, that is without question or thinking.
Consequently, he believes and follows it rather blindly or maybe fearfully. There is blind or fearful
obedience far as the teaching of the society is concerned. He was taught by society that he is a
creation of God; thus, he claims that God created him. He learned from his parents that God is
merciful; hence, he maintains that God is merciful. He learned from his teachers that man is
rational animal; ergo, he claims that he is a rational animal. He was taught that his personality is
the product of heredity and environment, so he maintains that his personality is the interplay of
genes and environment.

Man’s inherited knowledge makes him, literally, at home with himself. This is so
because he has basis in looking, interpreting, or judging his many experiences. Thus, he feels secure
and tranquil.

Page 4 of 29
THE BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHY

As man grows older, however, he encounters experiences and situations, like the death
of a loved one, that break his sense of security and tranquillity, and inevitably, make him restless.
This restlessness drives him to wonder about himself and to question the knowledge he inherited.
Am I real or not? Who am I? Why was I born in this world? What is my composition? Am I a body, a
soul, or a body and soul? Am I good or evil by nature? When did I begin to live in this world? Am I
free? If I am free, up to what extent can I exercise my freedom? What is death? Why do I die? Or,
why do I have to die? Why do I have to suffer? Am I a creature of God? In the first place, is there
God? Does he exist? Is He a reality or an illusion? What is the meaning of my life, of my existence?
This is the beginning of or the initiation to philosophy. It is the beginning of man’s pursuit of
meaning, and thus, wisdom. Kavanaugh, S.J. (1970), crystallized this when he said:

The act of questioning, of wanting to know,

is the initiation to philosophy.

On the same tenor, Aristotle, as cited by Terre (1980), said,

The beginning of philosophy is wonder.

Wonder is what sets us on the pursuit of
wisdom when we start asking questions
pointing to causes: why this? where from?
where to? and so forth.

Moreover, man’s questions regarding himself disclose unto him two essential truths
concerning his very being. First, his questions regarding himself which drive him to pursue answers
disclose unto him that by nature he desires to know. He has a natural inclination for knowledge,
particularly knowledge of himself. He wants to know who he is. The words of Kavanaugh, S.J.
(1970) captured this, thus:

I discover about myself in this very act of

initiation (questioning) that I want to know
who and what I am. I want to know and
understand my identity.

Second, man’s act of questioning manifests unto him that he does not know himself
after all. He is unknown to himself. Fr. Ferriols acknowledge this. In Magpakatao: Ilang Babasahing
Pilosopiko (1999), he wrote in Filipino,

Katotohanan. Kaalaman. Karunungan

ukol sa mga nakababalisa sa kalooban
ninuman. May kahulugan ba ang mag-
pakatao? Ang aking pagkatao? Sino ako?
Sino ka?...
At sa ganitong paghaghanap, meron bang
natutuklasan?
Oo. Kaalamang mulat sa kanyang di
Pagkaalam sa kanyang sarili (italics supplied)

Page 5 of 29
Friedrich Nietzshe likewise captured this. In the Genealogy of Morals, as translated Golffing (1956),
he radically claimed:

We knowers are unknown to ourselves…

As a man divinely abstracted and self – absorbed
into whose ears the bell has just drummed the twelve
strokes of noon will suddenly awake with a start and
ask himself what hour has actually struck, we sometimes
rub our ears after the event and ask ourselves, astonished
and at a loss, “What have we really experienced?” – or rather,
“Who are we really?” … The sad truth is that we remain
Necessarily strangers to ourselves, we don’t understand our
Own substance … Of ourselves we are not knowers.

THE LIBERATION OF MAN THROUGH PHILOSOPHY

Man is within the sphere of communal traditions, customs, and beliefs. He was born in a
community; as such he is surrounded by its traditions, customs, and beliefs. Astonishingly
however, the traditions, customs, and beliefs of the community become the be all and end all of
everything in his life. They become absolutes that he ought to follow and observe for fear of
punishment. Consequently, he acts and behaves in fearful conformity with them. He follows the
teachings of the community because of fear. He wears a bahag (an upland native attire), which is
part of the custom of the community, because of fear. He does not take a bath during Good Friday
because of fear. He does not sweep the floor in the evening because of fear. He respects and kisses
the hands of his father and mother because of fear. He believes in God because of fear. In short,
he is simply a fearful follower.

Furthermore, he follows the traditions, customs, and beliefs of the community without
inquiring why he should follow or without inquiring as to their truth. He is passive follower. His
following is characterized by an unquestioning acceptance of everything handed down to him. He
simply follows and nothing more. The customs say that he has to kiss the hands of his parents, and
so he does. The beliefs say that he has to do acts of penance on holy week, and so he does.

In philosophy, man becomes free from his fearful and passive acceptance of everything
handed down to him. In other words, philosophy liberates him from the fearful and blind
adherence to communal traditions, customs, and beliefs, and from the ignorance attached to what
he is doing or believing. It liberates him from passive acceptance because in philosophy he has to
know the underlying reasons for everything handed down to him. He becomes free from ignorance
because in philosophy he understands, and seeks to understand. All these do not mean however
that, in philosophy, man becomes a rebel against the traditions, customs, and beliefs of the
community. It simply means that man becomes a conscious, knowing, and responsible follower of
the communal traditions, customs, and beliefs, and not a fearful and blind advocate of the same.

In addition, philosophy opens man’s horizon to everything he sees and does. More so, it
calls him to know what he knows. The very fact that a question is raised places him at a distance to
his situation or to what he is doing, and consequently, enables him to view what he is doing and
believing from another perspective. Anent to this, Kavanaugh, S.J. (1970), said:

Page 6 of 29
 Philosophy as a discipline of questioning implies
a release – perhaps even revolt – from historical,
sociological, and psychological encapsulation. By
the very fact that a question arises, I am liberated
from the chains of unquestioning acceptance of
whatever is at hand. I can say, “wait a second”, to
the present situation … I am able to place myself
at a distance from the press of all the data and stimuli
that are immediately beckoning me. And what is more,
I can resist the currents which pull me toward thoughtless
conformity.

He added that:

In philosophical questioning, then, I am liberated from

blind adherence to what is present or what is promised as
reward. A horizon of possibilities rather than necessity is
before me. To the reflective mind, the society in which he
lives is no longer an imprisoning womb offering the cessation
of growth with its gifts of security … Rather, the world around
the questioning philosopher is an invitation to be listened to
and responded to.

THE SCIENCE OF PHILOSOPHY

It has been inquired not just once but millions of times as to whether philosophy is a
science or not. This part of the chapter seeks to throw light on the query .

The term “science”, claimed Artigas (1990), has two principal meanings. First, science is
certain knowledge through causes. This means that science is kind of knowledge obtained by
studying causes. Following this definition, philosophy is a science for it studies the causes of
reality. Moreover, if other sciences deal only with the more and intermediate causes of reality,
philosophy studies the deepest causes of reality. Thus, it is the first and most eminent among
all the sciences.

Second, science is knowledge attained by way of demonstration, starting from some

principles. Science is attained by observation, by starting from some theories or laws. Under
this definition, philosophy qualifies as a science for it attains knowledge in the same way. More
importantly, philosophy studies the first or most basic principles of all knowledge, which other
sciences do not do. Hence, it is sometimes called the science of all sciences.

METHODS IN PHILOSOPHY

Since philosophy is a science, then a consideration of its methods is in order. Zulueta, et

al. (2000), outlined the methods used by different philosophers, as follows:

Page 7 of 29
 EMPIRICAL METHOD – This method stresses that all knowledge are derived through
observation, experience, or are inferred, directly or indirectly, from data received by man’s
senses – sight, smell, sound, touch, and taste.

RATIONAL METHOD – This method puts emphasis on reasoning or thought as the

fundamental factor in attaining knowledge, prior or superior to, and independent of, sense
perceptions.

INDUCTIVE METHOD – This is a method of drawing general conclusions from many

different particular or individual experiences. In this method, the probability of the truth of the
generalization or conclusion is increased by each instance that confirms it.

DEDUCTIVE METHOD – This is method proceeds from a universal to a less universal

(particular or specific) truth. It consists in drawing implications and inferences from a general
statement or universal truth.

DIALECTIC METHOD – This is ordinarily known as the process of arriving at knowledge

through the question – and – answer technique. Hegel described this method as a procedure
whereby a thought or an existing (thesis) necessarily leads to or changes into its opposite or
contradictory idea (antithesis) and consequently a new thought or thing (synthesis) is attained.

ANALYTIC METHOD – This method consists in the mental or actual separation of a

problem or object into its component parts. This method studies each part separately and
shows their interrelationships and their relations to the whole.

ROMANTIC METHOD – This method is described as the tendency to the base a world
view chiefly on feelings and instincts. Immediate sensation and intense feelings aroused by
nature and events are valued over reason in this method.

SYNOPTIC METHOD – Plato, as cited by Brightman (1963), referred to this method as

the grasping of anything in one comprehensive view. This method studies the object in its
entirety, that, knows the separate parts and their relations to the whole, and understanding the
qualities of the object as whole.

AREAS OF STUDY IN PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy is a broad field of study. It evolves around many areas. Below are some of
these areas:

METAPHYSICS - The term “metaphysic” means “beyond the physical”. Metaphysics,

explained Artigas (1990), is the area of philosophy that studies all of reality, seeking its ultimate
causes in an absolute sense. It seeks the most intimate aspect of every reality, that is, its being;
it studies the causes that in the final analysis account for the being and the diverse manners of
being of things. It studies all of reality, since everything real has being. It is not limited to some
types of beings, unlike other branches of philosophy and the particular sciences. Only
something that would have no being would lie outside the scope of metaphysics; obviously,
that would be nothing.

Page 8 of 29
 COSMOLOGY – Cosmology, according to Ardales (1999), is the area of philosophy that
studies the universe as a rational and orderly system. It deals with the matters relative to the
origin, structure, constituting elements, characteristics, and the order and laws, which underlie
the existence, maintenance and operation of the world.

EPISTEMOLOGY – Epistemology or “Theory of Knowledge”, said Bahm (1995), is a

science originating from the question, “What is knowledge?” It involves many other questions,
such as “What is truth?” “What is certainty?” and their opposites, such as “What is ignorance?”
“What is falsity?” Epistemology is the philosophic field that investigates the beginning, nature,
extent, and validity of knowledge (Ardales, 1999). It is preoccupied with the formulation,
expression, and communication of knowledge in all its forms.

THEODICY – Theodicy, strictly speaking, is part of metaphysics. It is the branch of

philosophy which studies God as Subsistent Being and First Cause of all things (Artigas, 1990).
Furthermore, it is the philosophic discipline that investigates the nature, being, goodness, and
justice of God; the relationship between God and man; and the doctrines related to divinity
(Ardales, 1999)

SEMANTICS – Ardales (1990) states that semantics is the philosophic inquiry that studies
the meaning of words and linguistic forms, their functions as symbols, and the role they play in
relation to human thoughts and behaviour.

LOGIC – Logic is the branch of philosophy which studies the laws that apply to different
types of reasoning, that is, the conditions that must be met to make them valid (Artigas 1990).
It studies the mental processes, to make sure that they are correct and that they lead to the
truth.

It must be noted that logic is distinct from psychology. Psychology studies the acts of
human reason in themselves, as characteristics of man, and seeks to define their nature. It
considers human acts as part of reality. In contrast, logic deals with intellectual processes in so
far as they relate some knowledge with others, or with the reality they signify (Artigas 1990)

ETHICS – Ethics is practical science. It is practical science because it deals with human
acts in so far as they are voluntary, and because it is a part of philosophy which studies the
ultimate explanation of the ends and the means concerning human existence (Artigas, 1990).
On the same tenor, Ardales (1999) claimed that it is a philosophical discipline that examines the
right and wrong in man’s behaviour as well as the pursuit of the good life. It inquires on the
nature of moral good and evil, their origin, their grounds and what they finally amount to.

AESTHETICS – Ardales (1999) explicated that aesthetics is the philosophical inquiry on

the beauty and the value of works of arts. It studies the nature of beauty and examines the
critical standards used in making judgment about what is beautiful and what is not.

AXIOLOGY – It is the field of philosophy that studies the origin, nature, and meaning of
values (Ardales, 1999). It examines the grounds that make a person, an object, or an act
valuable or desirable.

Page 9 of 29
 PHILOSOPHY OF MAN – Strictly speaking, Philosophy of man is one among the many
areas of philosophy. Artigas (1990) explained that Philosophy of Man is an area of philosophy
which studies the strictly human operations of man, that is, acts of intellectual knowledge and
free will.

However, Philosophy of Man is not just an area of philosophy; it is the all of philosophy.
Philosophy of Man is not really confined to the strictly human operations of man but with
everything concerning him: the meaning and purpose of his life, his freedom, his dignity, his
composition, his origin, his relation with himself, with others, and with God, and other matters
related to man. These are the concerns of philosophy itself.

V. EVALUATION
Try answering this:
Check your option for answering:
Online
Offline

Instructions: Answer the following questions briefly but substantially.

1. What is your own definition of philosophy? Expound your definition.

2. What is inherited knowledge?
3. Why does man blindly follow communal traditions, customs, and beliefs?
4. How does philosophy liberate man?
5. Explain one method of philosophy.
6. Explain one branch of philosophy.
7. Why is Philosophy of Man the all of philosophy?
8. Is philosophy of value to your life? Why/Why not?

Page 10 of 29
I. MAIN TOPIC:

Lesson 2: The Embodied – Spirit Called Man

II. LESSON OBJECTIVES:

At the end of the 90 – minute lesson, the students are expected to:
1. explain the meaning of an embodied – spirit called man;
2. explain the following propositions given; and
3. research on the composition of man.

III. LESSON PROPER:

LESSON 2 - THE EMBODIED – SPIRIT CALLED MAN

In the contemporary times, man finds time no more to sit down and reflect on himself,
on who and what he really is. He finds no time to be with himself in the fullest sense of the
word – to be with himself. He finds no time to be alone with himself. Consequently, ignorance
of who and what he really is attacks him. This is brought about by his too many immediate
concerns, like family matters, matters of the heart, civic matters, his career, political matters,
matters of religion, and others.

Man however has to know himself. Without knowing who and what he really is, his
endeavours and pursuits are all in vain and futile. He has to know himself for him to know the
reasons for everything he does.

MAN’S EXPERIENCE OF HIMSELF AS A BODY

Man’s experience of himself shows that there exists an intimate relation between him
aand his body. And, this relation accepts no gap or barrier. There is no gap or barrier between
man and his body. There is nothing that stands between him and his body. His experience of
himself is manifested by the fact that wherever he goes there is his body. He goes to the mall,
to the park, or to a room, there is his body. Likewise, whatever he does, his body is with him. He
eats, works, sleeps, or dances, undeniably his body is with him. Moreover, when a man
describes himself, he describes himself through his body. He narrates the attributes of his body,
like tall, handsome, with a dimple, and others. Conformably, man’s experience of him discloses
that he is his body.

MAN’S EXPERIENCE OF HIMSELF AS AN OWNER OF HIS BODY

Man’s experience of himself, likewise, shows that he is not simply a body. He is mind
and will too. Calazans in Dy (1986) observed:

When I say to my parents, “I love you”,

this one loving them is not just this “ tall –
mestizo – looking – long – haired – with –
small – ears – fat – belly – etc.” body of

Page 11 of 29
 mine but my whole spirit and will. And it
can happen that while my body is in
room B – 109 listening to a boring
lecture on the theories of Lobachevski
or the poems of Chairil Anwar, I am
taking a walk at the beach, along with
my sweetheart, watching the sunset.

Here, man’s experience of himself shows that man is not his body, rather, he has a body.
Man owns a body. He possesses a body.

MAN’S OWNERSHIP OF HIS BODY

The manifestation that man owns a body, or his body, leads to the query, “How does
man own his body?” “In what manner does he own his body?”

Man’s ownership of his body is, in a way, the same with his ownership of his dog.
Gabriel Marcel, in his Mystery and Being, Vol. I, as translated by Fraser (1960), said that both
imply owning. No one owns my body and no one owns my dog, then I can command them. I can
command my body to sleep, and I can command my dog to sit. And, they obey me. Man,
therefore, has authority over them. Moreover, since man owns and has authority over his body
and his dog, then he is responsible for them. He is responsible for their subsistence. He has to
feed them. He has to care for them.

However, the similarity between man’s owning his body and his owning his dog is only
up to the point mentioned. Substantially, his owning his body is different from his owning his
dog. Foremost, the dog exists outside of him whereas his body does not. There is oneness
between man and his body while there is separateness between man and his dog. Thus, he may
lose his dog but never his body. It is absurd to claim that he may lose his body.

Secondly, the location and historicity of man is the same as that of his body. The time
and place of his birth are the same as that of his body. This is not the case with man and his
dog. The time and the place of his birth are not the same as those of his dog’s.

Lastly, the dog is man’s instrument for something. It guards him and his properties. This
happens because of his body. In other words, he is able to use his dog because of his body.
Without his body, he is incapable of using his dog as a guard. Utmost, there is no relation
between him and his dog. In the case of his body, it is impossible that he makes use of it as an
instrument. This is so because there is nothing which he can use to make use of his body. To
use as instrument, man needs another instrument. If man uses his body as an instrument, then
he needs another instrument. This is, however, an outright impossibility. There is no such
instrument.

THE EMBODIED – SPIRIT

Man’s ownership of his body is essentially different from his ownership of his dog. Man,
although he owns his body, does not really own his body in the same way that he owns
his dog.
Page 12 of 29
 Man does not own his body in the manner that he owns his dog because he does not
look at his body as an object. He does not treat it as an object among many object in the world.
Simply stated, he says that he is his body. Man is his body because for him his body is not an
object. Gabriel Marcel says it all clearly in the following statement cited by Fraser (1960)

I am my body insofar as I succeed in recognizing

that this body of mine cannot, in the last analysis,
be brought down to the level of being this object,
an object, a something, or other.

Consequently, man does not experience himself as a body, a soul, or a body and a soul.
He experiences himself as being manifested by his body. He experiences himself as someone
incarnated by his body. Thus, claimed Marcel (Fraser, 1960), man is an embodied – spirit, or a
body – soul. Conformably, the life of man is not a bodily life alone nor a spiritual life alone, but
the life of an embodied – spirit – “etre incarnee”.

THE INSIGHTS OF ARISTOTLE AND ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

The realization that man is an embodied – spirit, or a body – soul, has already been
claimed by thinkers of old. Aristotle of the Ancient Period and St. Thomas Aquinas of the
Medieval Period were two of these thinkers.

ARISTOTLE

Aristotle is a student of Plato. According to him, man is not solely a soul but body
endowed with life (Copleston, Vol. 1, 1993) He called the principle of life soul. This means that
the giver of life of the body is the soul. Thus, without the soul, the body has no life. It is evident
here that the soul is not life itself. It is simply a giver of life.

Since man is a body endowed with life and the principle of life is the soul, then man, said
the thinker, is a unity of body and soul that is a body – soul. He explained that the relation of
body and soul is the relation of matter and form: there is no matter that is not informed by
form and there is no form that is not in the form of matter. Evidently, then, there is no body
except the body of a soul and there is no soul except the soul of a body.

Moreover, Aristotle claimed that there are three types of soul that form a series of such
a kind that the higher presupposes the lower but not vice – versa. (Copleston Vol. 1, 1993). The
lowest form is the nutritive soul or vegetative soul. This soul exercises the activities assimilation
and reproduction. It is found not only in plants but also in animals; yet it can exist by itself as it
does in plants. In order that any living being should continue to exist, this soul is necessary.
Thus, it is found in all living things but in plants it is found alone without the other souls.

The next is the sensitive soul. This soul exercises the powers of sense – perception,
desire, and locomotion. It is found in animals as well as in man, but not in plants.

Page 13 of 29
 Highest in the scale is the rational soul. This soul exercises the power of reason.
Furthermore, it unites in itself the powers of the lower souls, viz, assimilation, reproduction,
sense – perception, desire and locomotion.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, in line with the view of Aristotle whom he considered
the philosopher, man is unity of body and soul, and he can only exist in this unity. There is no
man without the body; and there is no man without the soul. There must be body and soul so
that there is man. In the Summa Theologica, as cited by Copleston (Vol. 1, 1993), he asserted:

For to the nature of species belongs what the definition signifies

and, in natural things, the definition does not signify the form only,
but the form and the matter, then the species is composed of matter
and form … As it belongs to the notion of man to composed of soul,
flesh, and bones, so man is composed of soul, flesh, and bones.

THE INSIGHTS OF PLATO AND ST. AUGUSTINE

PLATO

According to Plato, man is soul and nothing else. He defined the soul “the self –
initiating motion” or “the source of motion” (Copleston, Vol. 1, 1993). As soul, man lives
originally in the world of form. In this world, he is perfect, immutable, and unchangeable.
However, because of sin, man falls into the world of form, which is imperfect, mutable,
changeable and consequently, he acquires the body. Plato called the process of acquiring the
body imprisonment. Man, when he acquires the body is imprisoned in the body. Thus, the body
is nothing but a prison cell of man who is the perfect soul. It does not add anything to his being
a man.

Moreover, Plato claimed that man as a soul has three constitutive elements, viz, the
rational element, the spirited element, and the bodily element. Lavine (1989) stated that the
rational element is expressed in the power to use language and to reason; that the spirited
element is expressed in the emotional drives such as anger, ambition, aggression, pride,
protectiveness, honor, loyalty, courage, and the like; and, that the bodily element is expressed
in the bodily appetites, desires, and needs.

In addition, the thinker thought that the three elements are arranged in a hierarchical
order with the rational element as the highest, followed by the spirited element, and then the
bodily element ( Lavine, 1989). This being the order, Plato contented that the rational element
must govern the other two elements. This does not mean, however, that it alone should be
satisfied. Plato said that the well – being of man comes from the satisfaction of all the elements
which make him, with the rational element governing the spirited and the bodily elements.

ST. AUGUSTINE

St. Augustine is a Medieval Period thinker. According to him, seemingly man is body and
soul, that is, he is not a body alone nor a soul alone, but a being composed of both body and
soul; the body being the inferior part and the soul which is the better part.
Page 14 of 29
 However, he asserted that man is not really a body and soul, but a soul which possesses,
uses, and governs a body. He defined the soul as a certain kind of substance, sharing in reason,
fitted to rule the body (Hirschberger, 1958). Inferentially, the body is not a constituent part of
man nor is equal to the soul in importance. It is simply an instrument which man uses. In his
own words, as cited by Hirschberger (1958),

Man is truly soul, that is, a rational soul

which makes use of a mortal and material
body.

THE LIFE OF AN EMBODIED – SPIRIT

Interpreting the insight of Gabriel Marcel, Calazans in Dy (1986) cited that man, as an
embodied – spirit, experiences himself as a being in the world. His body acts as intermediary
between himself and the world. Because of his body, he experiences that he is in the world. He
experiences that the chair he is sitting on his hard, that the sunset is as red as a rose, and that
the effect of liquor on an empty stomach is strong. He has experiences of “near” and “far”, “up”
and down”, “hot” and “cold”.

Because of his body, he realizes that the world is separate from him, that the world is
not him (Dy, 1986). Thus, he understands that he is not a thing among other things and that he
is the one seeing the world. This discloses that he is the one giving meaning to the world. The
world is empty of meaning without him. Thus, because of his body, he understands that he is,
figuratively speaking, a being outside of the world – that he is not a being of the world.

ACTIVITY FOR PHILOSOPHIZING:

Try answering this:
Check your option for answering:
Online
Offline

1. Research on the composition of man and answer one issue: Is man a body? A soul? Or a
body – soul?

V. EVALUATION:

Try answering this:

Check your option for answering:
Online
Offline

Instructions: Explain the following propositions.

1. Man is his body

Page 15 of 29
 2. Man owns a body.
3. Man is an embodied – spirit.
4. Man is a body and soul.
5. Man is a perfect soul.

I. MAIN TOPIC/S
Lesson 3 – The Nature of Man

Page 16 of 29
II. LESSON OBJECTIVES:

At the end of the 90 – minute lesson, the students are expected to:
1. Analyze and determine whether the statements given are true or false;
2. Answer questions from the text; and
3. Construct a position paper on the nature of man: on whether he is good or evil.

III. INTRODUCTORY ACTIVITY / THINKING TIME / MOTIVATION:

Try answering this:
Check your option for answering:
Online
Offline

1. What are you as a person? Are you good or evil?

IV. LESSON PROPER:

LESSON 3 – THE NATURE OF MAN

The Nature of Man

The term “nature” means the inherent and primordial characteristics of a thing
unblemished and uninfluenced by outside factors. In this book, the term is used essentially to refer
to the inherent and primordial goodness or evilness in man.

The Cause of Wonder

Man, as an embodied – spirit, finds himself living in the world. In the world, man sees
different acts of bestiality and animosity done by his fellowmen, like murder, infanticide, parricide,
rape, robbery, theft, and others. These acts result to misery, pain, and suffering in the lives of so
many people.
Consequently, man fears for his own security. He locks himself in his room for
protection. He hires the services of security guards to protect himself. This discloses his fear of
what his fellowmen will do to him. For the same fear, her is reluctant to trust his very own
fellowmen.
Moreover, man sees in his fellowmen a strong motivation to survive even to the point of
disregarding other men. He sees the not caring whether some are dying of hunger and starvation
so long as he has something to eat – so long as there is food on his table. He sees them not caring
whether some are dying of cold so long as he can sleep well in the night in his air - conditioned
room. He sees people not caring whether other people are dying because they have no money for
medicine or for a doctor’s professional fee as long as he is healthy and can afford to shoulder his
medical needs.
Inevitably, man wonders, “Is man good or evil by nature?” “Is he a beast to his
fellowmen?” “Or a lamb gone astray?” “Why are there acts of monstrosity and bestiality?” “Why is
there murder. Infanticide, rape, robbery, theft, graft and corruption?”

The Good in Man

Man by nature is good. This is evidenced by his natural inclination to what is good, right,
and true. Man has a sense of good and evil, and he has natural orientation, for what is good. Man
Page 17 of 29
has a sense of right and wrong, and he has a natural orientation for what is right. He has a sense of
truth and falsity, and he has a natural orientation of what is true.
Moreover, man’s basic orientation towards what is good, right, and true is revealed by
his natural inclination for happiness. Man, by nature, desires to be happy. All of his actions are
geared toward the acquisition of happiness. He studies because he wants to be happy. He wants to
have a good job for himself and for his family in order to be happy. He marries because he wants to
be happy. He wants to have a child because he wants to be happy. He wants to have plenty of
money because he wants to be happy. He wants to have not only a mansion but a castle because
he wants to be happy. He wants to have not just a car but a BMW or a Mercedes Benz.
However, man’s basic goodness may be lost. Consequently, he may become evil. The
basic goodness in man may be lost if he will not cultivate it. It is, therefore, man’s duty to cultivate
the basic goodness in him; otherwise, it will be gone. Added to this, his exposure to the society may
influence him to become evil. His exposure to a worldly and material life which may glitter like gold
in his eyes may influence him to become evil.

The Plasticity in the Nature of Man

The realization that man is good by nature but may become evil if he will not cultivate
the basic goodness in him or if he will be influenced by the worldly and material life espoused by
the society where he is in reveals a striking peculiarity in the nature of man, that is its plasticity.
Man is plastic by nature. He is flexible. Man is subject to change. He may become evil although by
nature he is good.

THE INSIGHTS OF JEAN – JACQUES ROUSSEAU AND MENCIUS

The realization that man by nature is good but may become evil has been reached by
thinkers of old. Jean Jacques Rousseau and Mencius expounded on this.

JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU

According to Jean Jacques Rousseau man by nature is good. This is so because nature is
good and man is a part of nature (Adversalo ,1995). As part of nature, man is motivated by a
natural sentiment (amour de soi) which stimulates him to watch over his own preservation, and
which, directed in him by reason and pity, produces humanity and virtue (Stumpf, 1999). Man has
a natural inclination for self – love and compassion for others.
Rousseau averred that man’s actions and behaviours are motivated by self – love. His
first duty is to himself. His first feeling is centered on himself. And his instincts are at first directed
to his own preservation and his own welfare. Self – love, for Rousseau, is fundamentally good. It
must be noted that self – love, for the thinker, is different from egoism. Egoism, he said, is a feeling
which arises only in society, and which leads a man always to prefer himself to others. He
contended that in the true state of nature, egoism does not exist. This is so because man does not
make the comparisons which are required for egoism to be possible (Copleston, Vol. 6, 1993).
In addition, man by nature is moved by natural pity and compassion. This feeling comes
into operation when he has taken note in some sense of others. He sympathizes with or feels
compassion for those who are more unfortunate than he is and who are suffering from ills from
which he does not believe himself to be immune. Man naturally feels pity or compassion because
he identifies himself with the sufferer (Copleston, Vol. 6, 1993).

Page 18 of 29
 However, as he develops social contacts, he develops vices. Because of his exposure to
the society filled with greed, desire for luxury and power, selfishness and distrust, he becomes
corrupts (Zulueta, et al., 2000). In the society, he is motivated no more by the natural sentiment
but by an artificial sentiment (amour proper) which is born in society and which leads him to make
more of himself than every other and which inspires him to perpetuate all the evils against others,
including intense competition for the few places of honor, envy, malice, vanity, pride, and
contempt. In other words, for Rousseau, man by nature is good but becomes evil because of
society. The very reason why man becomes evil is the society. It corrupts him. It adulterates the
very goodness in him. For this reason, Rousseau stated that there is a need for man to be back to
nature, that is, to live in a pure and unadulterated natural state in order to attain social salvation
(Zulueta, et al., 2000).

MENCIUS

According to Mencius, as explicated by Centeno (1997), man is by nature good. This

does not mean however that every man is a sage (or a wise man). Rather, it means that there are
good elements in the nature of man.
Aside from the good elements, there are also other elements in man which are neither
good nor evil in themselves, but which, if not duly controlled, can lead to evil. However, these are
elements which man shares in common with other living creatures. They represent the “animal”
aspect of man’s life and therefore, strictly speaking, should not be considered as part of human
nature (Centeno, 1997).
To support this claim, the Chinese philosopher said that human nature is like water.
There is no man that is not good just as there is no water that does not flow down.
He added that man has four elements or germ of goodness in him. Ebrey (1993) cited
the four germs.

The Spontaneous Feelings of Pity and Human Sympathy.

Mencius declared that a man who suddenly sees a child about to fall into a well will, without
exception, experience a feeling of alarm and distress. This feeling of alarm and distress is not
because he wants to improve his relation with the child’s parents, nor he wants a good reputation
among his friends and neighbours, nor because he dislikes hearing a child cry. It is something which
comes spontaneously without external reason.
The Spontaneous Feeling of Deference to Elders or to those in
Authority. The sage believed that every man has a feeling of respect to his parents. In the same
vein, every man honors those who are in authority.
The Spontaneous Feelings of Approval or Disapproval to Others’
Actions. According to Mencius, anyone who sees another doing something wrong will react with a
feeling of disapproval of the action. If the action is right or proper, he will have a feeling of
approval.
The Spontaneous Feelings of Shame or Aversion.
Mencius stated that every man will naturally abhor an action which he knows to be wrong. And, if
he has done something which he knows to be wrong, he will feel shame for it.
Mencius added that these four germs of goodness need to be cultivated: otherwise they
will naturally abhor an action which he knows to be wrong. And, if he has done something which he
knows to be wrong, he will feel shame for it.

Page 19 of 29
 Mencius added that these four germs of goodness need to be cultivated: otherwise they
will die a natural death. Consequently, man will become bad. Along this line, Mencius, as explained
further by Centeno (1997), compared man to plants. He said that like a seed, one’s genetic and
moral sense are already established. A seed is planted on the ground and the plant sprouts above
the ground. The young sprout needs to be nurture with the right amount of sunlight, water, and
nutrients. Under harsh conditions, the young sprout will wither away and die. Under good
conditions, the young sprout will grow strong roots, thick branches, and become healthy. If one
pulls out a sprout before it matures, it will die. A sprout or a child that is nurtured in a healthy
environment will naturally develop a moral sense of goodness, eventually maturing into a sage.

THE INSIGHTS OF THOMAS HOBBES AND XUN ZI

Although the thinkers just cited affirmed unequivocally that man by nature is good but
may become evil, other thinkers claim that man by nature is evil. Thomas Hobbes and Xun Zi are
among them.

THOMAS HOBBES

According to Thomas Hobbes, man is evil by nature. He is a beast to his fellowmen – a

homo homini lupus (Adversalo, 1995). He lives with the motivation to survive and nothing more.
The only thing important to him is that he survives. He does not care about other people. Contrary
to the reading of many thinkers , Hobbes claimed that there is no such thing as finis ultimus,
ultimate end, nor is there a summum bonum, greatest good (Randall, et al., 1953). The only thing
that exists is the desire I man to survive.
Man’s sole desire for survival is revealed to him by his two endeavours, viz., appetite
and aversion (Stumpf, 1999). These two endeavours account for his motions to and from other
men and objects. He is attracted to what he thinks will help him survive, and he hates whatever he
judges to be a threat to him.
Moreover, in his desire to survive, claimed Hobbes, he perpetually and restlessly
desires for power not only because he is not contented with what he has but he wants to assure
himself of power and the means to live well. He claimed, as cited by Randall, et al., (1953), that
Kings, whose power is great, turn their endeavours to assuring themselves of what they have by
laws at him (their own country) and by war abroad. When that is done, there comes a new desire
like fame for new conquest, of ease and sense pleasure, of admiration, of being flattered for
excellence, or of ability of the mind.
Since man is motivated solely by his desire to survive, what is right and wrong depend
entirely on his likes and dislikes. He does not care about other men whether they will be hurt or
not. He only cares for what he likes. He is then egoistic. Consequently, Hobbes said that man is
constantly at odds with others (Gilles, 1987). With so many possible interpretations of right and
wrong, and with no interpretation being absolute, it is inevitable that men will constantly disagree
with one another and seek their own desires for survival rather than the desire of the common
good. Thus, humanity, explained Hobbes, exists in a constant state of war. War here means not
simply a state of armed conflict, but the natural state in which men exist. It is a war of all against
all. In the Leviathan, as cited by Gilles (1987), he said,

For as the nature of foul weather lies not

in as shower or two of rain, but in an
inclination thereto of many days together;
so the nature of war consists not in actual
fighting, but in the know disposition
Page 20 of 29
 thereto, during all the time there is no
assurance to the contrary.

Being in a state of war, man lives in constant fear. He fears for his survival. The
presence of other people threatens his existence. It diminishes his ability to survive.
As a result of the state of war, said Thomas Hobbes, men come together to establish a
covenant (Gilles, 1987). Their coming, together, however is not because they realize that they are
wrong. Their coming together is because of fear and selfishness. Out of fear and selfishness men
come together to establish a covenant, which is a form of contract in which they agree to be
bound by an obligation to another party and trust that other party to carry out a certain obligation
to them in the future.
In the social covenant, where men remove themselves from a state of nature (the state
of constant war) to a commonwealth, the party with whom they make the covenant is the
sovereign and the obligation which they trust the sovereign to carry out is to enforce peace on the
parties to the covenant (Gilles, 1987). It must be noted here that the sovereign is not a party to the
covenant. Rather, he comes into existence as a result of the covenant but is not one of the
covenanting parties. This means that the sovereign, once constituted as such, is above the
covenant, in the sense that his authority is absolute. He owes no obligation to the covenanting
parties to explain his actions or to justify such actions. The sovereign has the sole power to
determine what is good and evil for the commonwealth. Thus, while in the state of nature human
being are the judges of their own conduct and may decide for themselves what constitutes good
and evil, in the commonwealth, it is the sovereign who decides what good and evil mean. (Gilles,
1987)

XUN ZI

In the thinking of Xun Zi (Centeno, 1997), another Chinese thinker, man, by nature is
evil. He based his claim on the prevailing situation of his time. He said that no one can deny the
existence of envy, pride, rebellion, selfishness, lust, conflicts, and others. These, he said, are proofs
of man’s inherent evilness. Explaining further, he said that when man does something good to
others, he expects something out of it. When a mother takes care of her daughter, it does not
mean that she loves her. She takes care of her daughter because of what people will say about her.
If she will not take care of her daughter, people will say that she is an irresponsible mother. Thus,
she takes care of her daughter so that people will admire and praise her. In the final analysis the
act is for her, not for her daughter.
Xun Zi added that whatever goodness a man is capable of doing is artificial. By this he
meant that whatever goodness a person shows is only a product of artificial training – of education.
Education makes man good. Without such training, human nature will be revealed as selfishly evil
(Centeno, 1997).

V. PRACTICE EXERCISE:
Try answering this:
Check your option for answering:
Online

Page 21 of 29
 Offline

Directions: Analyze and determine whether the statements are true or false. If the statements
is true, write “true” in the space provided. If the statement is false, write “false” in the space
provided ad modify the statement.

_________________1. Man by nature is good because he has sense of right and wrong, and
naturally he seeks what is wrong.
_________________2. There is plasticity in the nature of man.
_________________3. According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, man by nature is evil.
__________________4. According to Jean Jacques Rousseau man’s actions and behaviours are
motivated by selfishness.
_________________5. In the idea of Rousseau, man becomes evil because of society.
_________________6. According to Mencius, man by nature is good.
_________________7. According to Xun Zi, man has four germs of goodness in him.
_________________8. Thomas Hobbes believed that man is evil by nature.
_________________9. Thomas Hobbes claimed that man is a lamb to his fellowmen.
_________________10.Rousseau claimed that man is beast to his fellowmen.
_________________11. The desire to survive, claimed Hobbes, makes man perpetually and
restlessly desires for power after power.
_________________12. Mencius contended that man is constantly at odds with others.
_________________13. Humanity, asserted Hobbes, is in a constant state of war.
_________________14. The presence of other people diminishes man’s ability to survive,
argued Hobbes.
_________________15. Jean Jacques Rousseau claimed that from the state of war, men come
together to establish a covenant.

VI. EVALUATION
Try answering this:
Check your option for answering:
Online
Offline

Instructions: Answer the following questions briefly but substantially. Write your answer on the
space provided.

1. What is each of the following philosophers’ view of the nature of man?

a) Thomas Hobbes

b) Jean Jacques Rousseau

c) Mencius

Page 22 of 29
 d) Xun Zi

2. For Rousseau, what makes man evil?

3. For Mencius, what may make man evil?

4. For Xun Zi, what may make man artificially good?

5. For Hobbes, what drives man to enter into a social covenant?

6. What is education for Xun Zi?

7. Explain the plasticity in man’s nature.

8. Explain man’s orientation towards the good.

I. MAIN TOPIC/S
Lesson 4 – Man and His Origin

Page 23 of 29
II. LESSON OBJECTIVES:

At the end of the 90 – minute lesson, the students are expected to:
1. explain the theory of making;
2. explain the theory of evolution;
3. differentiate creation from making;
4. explain the theory of indirect making;
5. memorize the three stages of evolution and;
6. define OMEGA POINT.

III. INTRODUCTORY ACTIVITY / THINKING TIME / MOTIVATION:

Try answering this:
Check your option for answering:
Online
Offline

Being in the world, man observes that things have their origin. The term “origin” is used
to mean where an existing thing came from. A tricycle or a bicycle has an origin. A virus or bacteria
has an origin. A drug has an origin. A particular tree or an animal species has an origin.
Consequently, he wonders, “Where did man come from?” “How did he exist in this world?”

IV. LESSON PROPER:

LESSON 4 - THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF MAN

THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF MAN

There are two popular theories on the origin of man, viz, the theory of making and the
theory of evolution

THE THEORY OF MAKING

The theory of making claims that man was made by God. Man came from God. This
implies a noble and dignified origin of man. One version of the theory of the making is found in the
Christian Bible, particularly in the book of Genesis. The book narrates that on the sixth day of the
creation week, God made man to rule over all His creations. In the exact wordings of The
Jerusalem Bible, Genesis, Chapter 1:26 (1966).
God said, “Let us make man in our own
image, in the likeness of ourselves, and
let them be masters of the fish of the sea,
the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild
beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon
the earth”.

God made man out of the dust of the earth. The book of Genesis Chapter 2: 7 (The
Jerusalem Bible, 1966), narrates:

God fashioned man of dust from the soil.

Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath

Page 24 of 29
 of life, and thus man became a living being.

It was worthwhile to mention that the book of Genesis did not mention that God
created man. It narrated that God made man. Conformably, God did not create man, but he
made man. Creation is different from making. Creation is from nothing, making is from
something. God made man not from nothing but from something, that is, from the dust of the
earth. Thus, the theory is the theory of making and not the theory of the creation of man.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Evolution is a process of gradual growth or development of an organism from a simple

organism. The theory of evolution holds that all forms of life originated by descent, with gradual
or abrupt modifications, from pre-existing forms which themselves trace backward in a
continuing series to the most rudimentary organisms (Webster Illustrated Contemporary
Dictionary, 1984). According to this theory, man is the most complex product of the
development; he came from the simplest organism.

One of the proponents of this theory is Charles Darwin who claimed that evolution
which happens through natural selection involves the following stages (Encyclopedia Americana
2003):
1. All species produce more germ cells, pollen, or spore than ever reach maturity.
2. The number of individuals in a species remains fairly constant.
3. There must be a high rate of mortality since more young are produced than would
ever reach maturity.
4. The individuals of a species are not all identical but show variation.
5. Some variations are better adapted than others to fit into the ecological niches in
nature.
6. The better adapted variations will have a better chance of surviving and producing
offspring than will the less adapted variants.
7. Offspring resembles parents by heredity.
8. Therefore, each successive generation will tend to have an increased proportion
consists only of the better adapted, and the less adapted will have been entirely
“eliminated”.

Darwin adds:
The gradual accumulation of adaptations
may result in the formation of new species
when a population splits into two portions
isolated from each other. Each portion then
becomes genetically different as a result
of its adaptation to its particular environment.
Such genetic differences eventually become so
great that fertile interbreeding between the
two portions can no longer take place, and they
have thus become two distinct species.

The theory of making related with the theory of creation strongly holds that God made
man out of the dust of the earth after creation all things in the world. Conformably, it assails that
there is no such thing as evolution. Recent researches and discoveries however affirm that there is

Page 25 of 29
evolution. There is extinction of one species because of failure to adapt to the environment. There
is also development of a new species from one existing species because of the ability of the latter
to adapt. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an animal species which thrived in the planet millions of
years ago, and the development of a new breed of bacteria out of an existing species bear witness
to this. Obviously, the theory of making is in hot water because of these recent scientific
researches and discoveries to evolution.

Based on the preceding discussion, the theory of evolution seems the more accurate
explanation on how man came to set foot on the planet. However, for a reason hither to unknown
it is, unable to provide a substantial proof as to how man came to evolve into what he is right now.
Up to the present, the so – called “missing link” between man and the apes has not yet been
discovered.

THE THEORY OF INDIRECT MAKING

The apparent conflict between the two theories, however, is not real. These two
theories however are not really contradictory; rather they are complementary in disclosing one
essential truth on man.

The recent researches and discoveries on how living organisms became extinct and how
some living organisms came to exist cannot simply be discarded. Indeed, there is extinction and
evolution of organisms. The theory of evolution in this case is very tenable.

However, living organisms cannot evolve out of nothing. Something cannot evolve from
nothing. This implies that there has to be something from which another evolves. There has to be
a primordial thing. On this paradigm, the theory of evolution is silent. It simply claims that there is
evolution. However, it is quiet as to how to primordial thing from which all things evolved came to
exist.

The primordial thing from which things evolved cannot be a product of evolution;
otherwise, it is not the primordial thing. The thing from which it came from is the primordial thing.
It is also impossible to maintain that there is no such primordial thing; otherwise, nothing is
existing at present. This is absurd. Since a primordial thing cannot evolve from nothing and it
cannot be that the primordial thing is non – existent, then there is no way of conceiving how it
came to exist other than its being created by God. In this case, the theory of making enters. God
made the primordial thing from which other things came to exist.

Using hypothetical syllogism, it can be inferred that God made man. If God made the
primordial thing from which things came to exist including man, then God made man. The
statement reveals that man was made by God indirectly through the process known as evolution,
thus, the theory of indirect making.

Worthy of note is that the Holy Bible expresses that God made everything in six days,
and on the seventh day He rested. However, it is said that God’s ways are not man’s. Radically
interpreted then, the six days stated in the Bible cannot be six days in reference to man. It may be
six trillions of centuries. If it is so, then creation has not yet ended; it is still an ongoing process.
Evolution may God’s way of creation.

Page 26 of 29
 THE INSIGHT OF TEILHARD DE CHARDIN

A Jesuit thinker named Teilhard de Chardin admitted the preceding thought in

unequivocal terms.

According to Teilhard de Chardin, man came from God. God made man, he said through
evolution. Thus, man is a product of evolution, which is in itself God’s way of making man.

But more than merely admitting the idea, he declared that man is the highest point of
evolution and the very reason for the series of development beginning from elemental matter or
radial energy. He called the series of development homonization (Quito, 2002).

Furthermore, in contrast to thinkers before him he maintained that the universe is

made up of matter – spirit. That matter has some form of spirit and vice – versa is herein implied.
Thus, there is neither pure spirit nor pure matter.

The preceding accounts for what Teilhard called the within (dedans) and the without
(dehors) of everything in the universe (Quito, 2002). The outside or the without of every being is
the peripheral, the perceivable (or matter), whereas the within is consciousness. Every being in the
universe has a within and a without. This implies that there is consciousness (or spirit) even in the
lowest sphere of being as in the case of stones, minerals, and non – living beings belonging to Pre –
Life (Quito, 2002).

The second stage of development, continued the thinker, is Life. He called the process of
evolution from Pre – Life to Life biogenesis (Quito, 2002). In this stage, there is a higher form of
consciousness does not appear from nowhere. If it burst forth in higher stage, it is because it has
already been present, albeit in primal stage, in the lower stages of evolution (Quito, 2002).

The highest form of consciousness is found in the next stage which is the Rational Stage
(Human Stage). The evolution from Life into the Rational Stage is called Psychogenesis (Quito,
2002).

The Hyper – Person

As noted, homonization is comprised by the Pre – Life, Life, and the Rational Stage
(geogenesis, biogenesis, and psychogenesis, respectively). Evolution, however, Teilhard claimed,
does not end in man. This is so because man is still capable of rising higher by means of a non –
scientific power which Teilhard called Love (Quito, 2002). Man can become a Hyper – person in a
Hyper – Life which is preparatory to union with the cosmic Christ or the God – Man. Teilhard called
this the Omega Point. It must be noted that the thinker used Love and not Freedom to enable man
to be with the Cosmic Christ or the Christ who loves man (Quito, 2002). Furthermore, Teilhard
used Cosmic Christ to show that Christ is involved in man’s history as his final end or objective
(Quito, 2002).
The Hyper – Person or Omega Point, claimed Teilhard, is a coming together or humanity,
a process that tends to ceaseless inter – penetration, a plurality within unity, a divergence in unity.
The Omega Point is the convergence of all being from non – Life, to life, that is, everything will
culminate in God, who is Christ, the God – Man (Quito, 2002).

Page 27 of 29
V. EVALUATION
Try answering this:
Check your option for answering:
Online
Offline

Instructions: Answer the following questions briefly but substantially. Write your answer on the
space provided.

1. Explain the theory of making.

2. Explain the theory of evolution.

3. Differentiate creation from making.

4. Explain the theory of indirect making

5. What is the Omega Point?

Page 28 of 29
VI. ADDITIONAL ACTIVITY:

MAN AND PHILOSOPHY

Instructions: Prepare a reflection paper on any of the following claims:

a. Philosophy is man’s turning back upon himself. (St. Augustine)
b. Philosophy is absorbing, liberating, sheltering, and consoling (St. Augustine)
c. Philosophy is man’s continuous quest for meaning and value.

THE EMBODIED SPIRIT CALLED MAN

Instructions: Write a critique on any of the contentious of the following philosophers:

a. Plato
b. Aristotle
c. St. Augustine
d. St. Thomas Aquinas
e. Gabriel Marcel

THE NATURE OF MAN

Instructions: Construct a position paper on the nature of man: on whether he is good or evil.

Page 29 of 29