Introduction to

Philosophy of the
Human Person
Quarter 2 – Module 2:
Intersubjectivity
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person
Alternative Delivery Mode
Quarter 2 – Module 2: Title
First Edition, 2020

Republic Act 8293, section 176 states that: No copyright shall subsist in any work of the
Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein
the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office
may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties.

Borrowed materials (i.e., songs, stories, poems, pictures, photos, brand names, trademarks,
etc.) included in this module are owned by their respective copyright holders. Every effort has been
exerted to locate and seek permission to use these materials from their respective copyright owners.
The publisher and authors do not represent nor claim ownership over them.

Published by the Department of Education Secretary:

Leonor Magtolis Briones Undersecretary: Diosdado M.
San Antonio

Development Team of the Module

Writers: Name
Editors: Name
Reviewers: Name
Illustrator: Name Layout
Artist: Name
Management Team: Wilfredo E. Cabral, Regional Director
Job S. Zape Jr., CLMD Chief
Elaine T. Balaogan, Regional ADM Coordinator Fe
M. Ong-ongowan, Regional Librarian
Name of CID Chief
Name of Division EPS In Charge of LRMS Name of
Division ADM Coordinator

Printed in the Philippines by

Department of Education – Region IV-A CALABARZON

Office Address: Gate 2 Karangalan Village, Barangay San Isidro

Cainta, Rizal 1800
Telefax: 02-8682-5773/8684-4914/8647-7487
E-mail Address: region4a@deped.gov.ph
Introduction to the
Philosophy of the
Human Person
Quarter 1 – Module 2:
Intersubjectivity
Introductory Message
For the facilitator:

Welcome to the Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person, Alternative

Delivery Mode (ADM) Module on Intersubjectivity!

This module was collaboratively designed, developed and reviewed by educators both
from public and private institutions to assist you, the teacher or facilitator in helping
the learners meet the standards set by the K to 12 Curriculum while overcoming
their personal, social, and economic constraints in schooling.

This learning resource hopes to engage the learners into guided and independent
learning activities at their own pace and time. Furthermore, this also aims to help
learners acquire the needed 21st century skills while taking into consideration
their needs and circumstances.

In addition to the material in the main text, you will also see this box in the body of
the module:

Notes to the Teacher

This contains helpful tips or strategies that
will help you in guiding the learners.

As a facilitator you are expected to orient the learners on how to use this module.
You also need to keep track of the learners' progress while allowing them to
manage their own learning. Furthermore, you are expected to encourage and assist
the learners as they do the tasks included in the module.

14
For the learner:

Welcome to the Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person (Mathematics

7) Alternative Delivery Mode (ADM) Module on Intersubjectivity!

The hand is one of the most symbolized part of the human body. It is often used to
depict skill, action and purpose. Through our hands we may learn, create and
accomplish. Hence, the hand in this learning resource signifies that you as a learner
is capable and empowered to successfully achieve the relevant competencies and
skills at your own pace and time. Your academic success lies in your own hands!

This module was designed to provide you with fun and meaningful opportunities for
guided and independent learning at your own pace and time. You will be enabled to
process the contents of the learning resource while being an active learner.

This module has the following parts and corresponding icons:

This will give you an idea of the skills or

competencies you are expected to learn in the
What I Need to Know module.
This part includes an activity that aims to
check what you already know about the
What I Know lesson to take. If you get all the answers
correct (100%), you may decide to skip this
module.
This is a brief drill or review to help you link
the current lesson with the previous one.
What’s In
In this portion, the new lesson will be
introduced to you in various ways such as a
What’s New story, a song, a poem, a problem opener, an
activity or a situation.
This section provides a brief discussion of
the lesson. This aims to help you discover
What is It and understand new concepts and skills.
This comprises activities for independent
practice to solidify your understanding and
What’s More skills of the topic. You may check the
answers to the exercises using the Answer
Key at the end of the module.
This includes questions or blank
sentence/paragraph to be filled in to
What I Have Learned process what you learned from the lesson.
This section provides an activity which will
help you transfer your new knowledge or skill
What I Can Do into real life situations or concerns.

14
 This is a task which aims to evaluate your
level of mastery in achieving the learning
Assessment competency.
In this portion, another activity will be given
to you to enrich your knowledge or skill of the
Additional Activities lesson learned. This also tends retention of
learned concepts.
This contains answers to all activities in the
module.
Answer Key

At the end of this module you will also find:

References This is a list of all sources used in developing

this module.

The following are some reminders in using this module:

1. Use the module with care. Do not put unnecessary mark/s on any part of the
module. Use a separate sheet of paper in answering the exercises.
2. Don’t forget to answer What I Know before moving on to the other activities
included in the module.
3. Read the instruction carefully before doing each task.
4. Observe honesty and integrity in doing the tasks and checking your answers.
5. Finish the task at hand before proceeding to the next.
6. Return this module to your teacher/facilitator once you are through with it.
If you encounter any difficulty in answering the tasks in this module, do not
hesitate to consult your teacher or facilitator. Always bear in mind that you are
not alone.

We hope that through this material, you will experience meaningful learning
and gain deep understanding of the relevant competencies. You can do it!

14
 What I Need to Know

We usually hear the saying, “No man is an island.” There is no doubt that an
average person understands this quotation but despite the universal understanding
we have about it, we still express in various ways our belief on “being with others.”
We have varying degrees of affection and regard towards others and to ourselves
as well which may come from our unique experiencing of social reality.

In fact, questions may be raised about the motivation of human beings in

maintaining social relations. Do we only establish and keep relationship with others
in order to avoid chaos in the world? Or are we only driven by benevolence? These
are some queries on the issue of intersubjectivity which this lesson will shed light
on.

After going through this module, you are expected to:

1. define intersubjectivity;
2. identify the similarities and differences of intersubjective concepts of the three
philosophers, namely Confucius, Martin Buber, and Karol Wojtyla;
3. explore your intersubjective experiences and;
4. enhance your relations with people from all walks of life, especially the
underprivileged and people with disability.

14
 What I Know

Answer the questions briefly after reading the passage from the Bible.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

Luke 10:25-37 (New International Version)

(25) On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,”
he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
(26) “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

(27) He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ [a]; and, ‘Love
your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
(28) “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
(29) But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my
neighbor?”
(30) In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho,
when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him
and went away, leaving him half dead. (31) A priest happened to be going down
the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
(32) So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on
the other side. (33) But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man
was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. (34) He went to him and
bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his
own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. (35) The next day
he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’
he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you
may have.’
(36) “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell
into the hands of robbers?”
(37) The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on
him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

14
Questions:

1. What virtue(s) does the parable show? Give the instance/s where you
see those virtue/s.

The story shows the Samaritan is a good guy. He sees a hurt man and helps him
right away, even though they're different. He does more than just feel bad; he cleans
the man's wounds, takes him to safety, and even pays for him to get better. He's kind,
brave, and open to helping anyone.

2. What do you think is the reason why the Good Samaritan helped the
stranger despite their social differences?
The Samaritan helped the hurt man for lots of reasons. Maybe he just saw
someone who needed help, no matter who they were, showing kindness. Or
maybe he wanted to show everyone that Samaritans are good people too,
breaking unfair rules. His religion taught him to help others, and his actions were
like a big thumbs-up to those beliefs. Maybe he even knew how bad it feels to be
hurt and didn't want anyone else to suffer like that.

3. If you are the Samaritan, would you do the same? Justify your answer.
The story makes us think about whether we would help someone in trouble, like the Samaritan.
It depends on what matters to you. Do you care about helping others, even if they're different? Can
you safely help without hurting yourself? Do you try to overcome any unfair thoughts you might
have about someone?

14
 Lesson

1 Intersubjectivity

What’s In

In the parable, it is hard to imagine that a Samaritan would help a Jew since
he is considered by the Jewish society as an outcast. But what happened was the
other way around – he helped the Jew despite of their differences and the unfair
treatment to him. This story clearly explains how man can go beyond cultural
considerations and how one can overcome grudges to performing an ethical act
towards a needy person.

It may be considered as unusual phenomenon in the present social realm but

the story tells us it is never impossible. Like the Good Samaritan, you may have
encounter strangers who need help. If there is/are any incident/s you helped
somebody unknown to you, please narrate your experience/s below. Tell how you
overcame your fear of strangers and what made you decide to help the person/s. But
if you don’t have any experience, tell us what you would do if you encounter one and
why would you help them.

MY GOOD SAMARITAN EXPERIENCE

At the bus stop, I saw a lady alone, looking sad. Feeling a bit shy, I started talking to her.
We chatted about everything, from the weather to books! It wasn't long, but I felt happy and
connected. When we said goodbye, her eyes sparkled, like a little light had turned on. It was a
small thing, but it made me feel good.

14
 What’s New

Intersubjectivity in General
Philosophy, unlike Theology, does not use primarily biblical texts in its
pursuit, though some religious texts are morally worthy to be examples in explaining
philosophical ideas like the previous reading we had. The Parable of the Good
Samaritan clearly explains the phenomenon of intersubjectivity in the human world.
Though it focuses on the Kingdom of God, it still validates the importance of
intersubjective relations of man.

Intersubjectivity is a coined word from the prefix “inter” which connotes

“among and between” and the philosophical term “subject” that is equivalent to a
conscious being. Thus, intersubjectivity would mean in the general sense as “sharing
of subjective states by two or more individuals.” (Scheff 2006). It is the organic union
of the subjective reality and the objective reality of beings. Meaning to say, as a
person, we have a personal regard to self but we cannot deny the fact (objective – fact
of reality we all share) that we live with others so we also regard them as part of
ourselves. We tend to place ourselves in others’ shoes and relate to them in good
ways as possible like what is shown in the comic strip below:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/An-Illustration-of-Technological-Intersubjectivity_fig2_228683281

14
 What is It

What Philosophers Say About Intersubjectivity

Intersubjectivity is universal. It exists when and where humans exist. It is an
undeniable reality which thinkers could not help but discuss. Here are some
philosophers who took philosophical inquiry on intersubjectivity:

1. Confucius (551-479 B.C.E.) – one of the main ideas of Confucianism is

Ren or “human-heartedness.” It is a virtue central to man that can be found
in his sociality or intersubjectivity. In his philosophy, Confucius stresses
order and harmony in the world. His aims can be achieved through practical,
concrete, particular, and perceptual ways. This means Confucian thinking on
intersubjectivity is practical humanism. There is an emphasis on human
actions in sociality. He calls every man to love the other through actions, not
through thoughts.

2. Martin Buber (1878-1965) – is a Jewish philosopher who introduced

the “I-Thou” and “I-It” relationships to embody his philosophy of
intersubjectivity. For Buber, we have to treat another person as a subject (a
being different from things or objects). Persons are not inanimate objects to
be used. They have their own mind and free will, thus, we have to respect
others as we respect ourselves. “I” refers to the self and “Thou” or “You”
refers to others. This “I- Thou” relationship is the most meaningful
relationship in the realm of humanity. The “I” is the same with the “Thou”
and there should be mutual relationship between them. We can only
recognize the self in the context of the other. This is a “person-to-person”
relationship, “subject-to-subject” relation. We need to accept, respect, be
sincere, and have dialogue with the other.

3. Karol Wojtyla (1920-2005) – He is also St. John Paul II but as a

philosopher, we use his real name. For Wojtyla, human action is the
foundation of our being. But human reality is also about being with others, so
our actions are also directed towards others. This form of action is now
called “Participation.” In the theory of participation, man has the capacity to
share himself to others. This affirms the reality that man acts and exists with
others. He is a member of the community of persons, a community of “I-You”
or “We.” Since man is a member of this community, his experience with
others gives him meaning and allows him to create meaning with others.

14
 What’s More

Activity: DIFFERENTIATION. State the distinct ideas of the three

philosophers. Write them in the separate columns. Also, write the ideas
where all three philosophers agree using the space provided for.

CONFUCIUS MARTIN BUBER KAROL WOJTLA

Distinct Ideas: Distinct Ideas: Distinct Ideas:

Being with It's all about real Action speaks

others is key. talk, man. When louder than
We gotta act we see each words! Sharing
kindly and other as people, ourselves with
follow the not just stuff, others, helping
rules to keep that's where the out, and building
things magic happens. justice together -
peaceful. It's all about "I- that's how we
Everyone has You" truly connect.
a role to play connections, not
for harmony. bossing people
around

Shared ideas of the three Philosophers:

Even though they have their own styles, all three

agree that connections matter. Treating each other
right, talking it out, and working together - that's
what makes life good.

14
 What I Have Learned

To verify the knowledge you gained in this lesson, let us situate the idea
of intersubjectivity in your own personal experiences and let us check whether
its relevance in our lives.
Answer the following questions thoroughly. 3-5 sentences are
enough.
1. Are there instances in your life when you feel you are treated as an
object? Share some experiences. How does it feel? Would you do
the same treatment to others? Why?
Being treated like a robot without thoughts or feelings stinks. It happens
when people ignore my ideas, cut me off, or judge me based on what I am, not
who I am. I wouldn't want that for anyone, so I always try to treat everyone with
respect, seeing them as unique people with something to say. That's how we
build a better world, one meaningful connection at a time.

2. Give some personal experiences when you feel you are treated as a
subject. How do you feel when you are treated in that way? Is it
lawful to do the same to others? Why?
I feel best when people treat me like a friend, not a robot. They ask me
interesting things, really listen to my answers, and take my ideas seriously. This
makes me want to share what I know and feels like we're working together.
Treating everyone like this makes friendships stronger and things better, all
around.

3. What do you think is the reason why people treat others as objects?
Sometimes people treat others like things to use, not like real people. Maybe they have
unfair beliefs, don't care how they act, or are just caught up in society's rules that put some
below others. It's not good, but we can be different and see everyone as special.

4. What do you have in mind when you treat others as subjects?

When I talk to someone, I try to really listen and understand them, like they're the most
interesting person in the room. I don't just hear their words, I try to see things from their
point of view and appreciate what they have to offer. We all have different stories and ideas,
and that's what makes talking so cool

14
5. Do you think that we can make a better world if we prioritize
intersubjective relationships over economic progress? Defend your
answer.
Treat others like real people, not robots. This builds a kinder world with
more understanding, fairness, and less unfairness. Progress is great, but it
shouldn't make us forget to connect and respect each other.

14
 What I Can Do

In our present society, we can notice all kinds of differences of people in the
world that may result to inequality, injustice, and all sorts of abuses. In order to
create a better world, we have to be sensitive about these things and respond in kind
manner. Below are societal problems which need solutions from intersubjective point
of view. Understand each statement and give concrete solutions. Use the ideas on
intersubjectivity elaborated by the philosophers we discussed. 3-5 sentences are
enough.

1. Instead of showing mercy, many people make fun of persons with

disabilities.
Instead of laughing, let's learn and empathize. See them, not their limitations.
Talk, understand, then help them shine.

2. Regarding rape issue, women are blamed because of the type of

clothes they wear.
Clothes don't cause it, bad people do. Stop blaming the victim. Listen, believe,
and fight for justice together.

3. Many say that poor people are poor because of their mentality.
It's not a choice, it's unfair. Give them a chance, not judgment. Education, opportunity,
and a helping hand, not blame.

4. Indigenous people have their own culture others do not understand

but some people make fun of them.
Different isn't weird, it's beautiful. Learn, respect, and celebrate unique
traditions. Open your mind, not your mouth.

5. Nowadays, some people think that psychological problems are just

excuses people do to justify their weaknesses.
It's real, not an excuse. Listen without judgment, offer support, and fight for
accessible care. Together, we can build a kinder world where everyone feels
understood and valued.

14
 Assessment

Multiple Choice. Choose the letter of the best answer. Write the chosen letter
on a separate sheet of paper.
1. Among the statements below, what best describes intersubjectivity?
a. Intersubjectivity is about how humans treat plants.
b. It is a state of sharing of subjective states by two or
more individuals.
c. It is about how we judge other persons.
d. We treat others as objects in intersubjective relationships.

2. Which statement is incorrect about intersubjectivity?

a. Love is an important aspect in intersubjective relationships.
b. We can put ourselves in the shoes of others.
c. I can disregard others as much as I want.
d. We cannot help but be sensitive with the existence of the other.

3. Who among the discussed philosophers focus on the concept of

human-heartedness in his philosophy of intersubjectivity?
a. Karol Wojtyla
b. Martin Buber
c. Confucius
d. Martin Heidegger

4. Who is the Jewish philosopher who introduced the “I-Thou” and “I-
It” relationships?
a. Karol Wojtyla
b. Martin Buber
c. Confucius
d. Martin Heidegger

5. What is the main focus of Karol Wojtyla’s philosophy of

intersubjectivity?
a. Intellect
b. Feelings
c. Participation
d. Contribution

14
 Additional Activities

SONG ANALYSIS: Intersubjective relationship is one of the favorite themes

of Filipino songs. Think of a Filipino song which is about intersubjectivity.
Write down the lyrics of the song and analyze how intersubjectivity is
explored by the song. Give also the implication of the song to relationships
you have with others.

SONG:

"Hanggang Ngayon" by Aiza Seguerra

ANALYSIS:

A classic ballad about holding onto a past love and the shared memories that
keep the connection alive.

14
 RUBRICS FOR THE ACTIVITY
Performance Needs
Outstanding Very Satisfactory Satisfactory
Areas Improvement
4 3 2
1
Ideas This paper is clear and This paper is mostly The writer is The topic is not
focused. It holds the focused and has some beginning to define well-defined and/or
reader's attention. good details and the topic, even though there are too many
Relevant details and quotes. development is still topics.
quotes enrich the basic or
central theme. general.
Organization The organization Paper (and The organizational Sentences within
enhances and showcases paragraphs) are structure is strong paragraphs make
the central idea or mostly organized, in enough to move the sense, but the order of
theme. The order, order, and makes reader through the paragraphs does not.
structure of information sense to the reader. text without too much
is compelling and moves confusion.
the reader through the
text.

Sentence The writing has an easy The writing mostly The text hums along The text seems
Fluency flow, rhythm, and flows and usually with a steady beat but choppy and is not
cadence. Sentences are invites oral reading. tends to be more easy to read orally.
well built, with a strong business-like than
and varied structure that musical, more
invites expressive oral mechanical than fluid.
reading.

Conventions The writer The write understands The writer shows The writer seems to
demonstrates a good good writing reasonable control have made little effort
grasp of standard conventions and usually over a limited range to use conventions:
writing conventions uses them correctly. of standard writing spelling, punctuation,
(e.g., spelling, Paper is easily read and conventions. capitalization, usage,
punctuation, errors are rare; minor Conventions are grammar, and/or
capitalization, grammar, touch- ups would get sometimes handled paragraphing have
usage, paragraphing) this piece ready to well and enhance multiple errors.
and uses conventions publish. readability; at other
effectively to enhance times, errors are
readability. distracting and
impair readability.
Presentation The form and The format only has a The writer's The writer's message
presentation of the text few mistakes and is message is is only understandable
enhance the ability of the generally easy to read understandable in occasionally, and the
reader to understand and and pleasing to the eye. this format. paper is messily
connect with the written.
message. It is pleasing
to the eye.

14
 Answer Key

C
B
C
C
B
Assessment

14
References:

BOOKS:
Agoncillo, T.A. (2012). The history of the Filipino people 8th edition. Quezon City:
C& E Publishing Corp.
Artigas, M. (2006). Philosophy: an introduction translated by Fr. M. Guzman.
Makati City: Sinag-tala Publishers Corpuz,
B.B., Ruben A.C., Maria Lovelyn C.P., Socrates, O.P., (2016). Introduction to the
philosophy of the human person for senior high school. Quezon
City: Lorimar publishing, Inc.
Bauzon, P.T. (2012). Handbook in social philosophy (with review materials in
social philosophy of education for LET) 2nd Edition. Mandaluyong City:
National Book Store.
Bernardo, J.P.V. (2016). Introduction to the philosophy of the human person.
Pasay City: JFS Publishing Services.
Buber, Martin. “Dialogue,” in Between Man and Man, Collins: Fontana, 1966.

Calano, Mark Joseph et al, Philosophizing and Being Human. Quezon City: Sibs
Publishing House Inc., 2016.

Copus, B.B. et al. (2016). Introduction to the philosophy of the human person.
Quezon City: Lorimar Pub.
Dy Jr., Manuel, Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. 2nd Edition. Makati City:
Goodwill
Trading Co. Inc, 2001.

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. New York:
SUNY
Press, 1996.

Krapiec, M. I. (1985). I – man: an outline of philosophical anthropology abridged

version by Francis J. Lescoe and Roger B. Duncan. New Britain: Mariel
Publications.

Mabaquiao Jr., Napoleon. Making Life Worth Living. Quezon City: Phoenix
Publishing House, Inc. 2017

14
 Maboloc, C. R. (2016). Introduction to the philosophy of the human person.
Quezon City: The Inteligente Publishing Inc.
Mercado, L.N. (1988). Applied Filipino philosophy. Tacloban City: Divine Word
University Publication.
Wallace, W.A. (1977). The elements of philosophy. New York City: Society of St.
Paul.
Ramos, C.C. (2016). Introduction to the philosophy of the human person.
Manila: Rex Publishing House
Socio, M.P.G. and Ignatius H.V. (2016). Introduction to the philosophy of the
human person. Quezon City: Vibal Group Inc.

JOURNALS:
Gaardner, J. (2007). A user manual for our planet. UNESCO: the courier. No. 9
ISSN.
1993- 8616. 4 – 5.

United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009).

Teaching philosophy in Asia – Pacific. Bangkok: author.

Augustine. Man: Body and soul. (1967). In A. Armstrong (Ed.), The Cambridge
History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (pp. 354- 361).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521040549.023

Callicott, J. Baird 1987, ‘Conceptual Resources for Environmental Ethics in Asian

Traditions of Thought: A Propaedeutic’, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 37, No. 2,
pp. 115-130.

Frese, Stephen J. 2003, ‘Aldo Leopold: An American Prophet’, The History

Teacher, Vol. 37, No. 1, Special Feature Issue: Environmental History and National
History Day 2003 Prize Essays, pp. 99-118.

Jenkins, Willis 2009, ‘After Lynn White: Religious Ethics and Environmental
Problems’, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 283-309.

Snyder Brian F. 2017, ‘The Darwinian Nihilist Critique of Environmental Ethics’,

Ethics and the Environment, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 59-78.

Welchman, Jennifer 2012, ‘A Defence of Environmental Stewardship’,

Environmental Values Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 297-316.

14
Confucianism and Existentialism: Intersubjectivity as the Way of Man Author(s):
Hwa Yol Jung Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , Dec., 1969, Vol.
30, No. 2 (Dec., 1969), pp. 186-202 Published by: International Phenomenological
Society

Jen: An Existential and Phenomenological Problem of Intersubjectivity Author(s):

Hwa Yol Jung Source: Philosophy East and West , Jul. - Oct., 1966, Vol. 16, No. 3/4
(Jul. - Oct., 1966), pp. 169-188 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press

Dean Edward A. Mejos, Against Alienation: Karol Wojtyla’s Theory of Participation,

Kritike, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2007

ONLINE SOURCES:

http://sutterfield.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/8/12686139/discussion_questions_ for_plato_cave.pdf
https://outre-monde.com/2010/09/25/platonic-myths-the-sun-line-and-cave/
http://blogphilosophy2.blogspot.com/2007/11/phenomenology.html
https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/12/01/the-human-person-as-an- embodied-
spirit/
https://ses.edu/a-summary-of-act-potency/
https://iep.utm.edu/envi-eth/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/environmental-aesthetics/
https://www.schooldrillers.com/anthropocentrism-in-environmental-ethics/
https://simplicable.com/new/environmental-issues
http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/sdancy.html
https://gm.ecotaf.net/1640-freedom.html
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts- and-
maps/human-act
https://studylib.net/doc/25188409/ethics-1-module-1-study-guide--aug-2018-
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-
magazines/tribal-society
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/digital-society/0/steps/23808
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2010:25-
37&version=NIV

14
For inquiries or feedback, please write or call:

Department of Education - Bureau of Learning Resources (DepEd-BLR) Ground

Floor, Bonifacio Bldg., DepEd Complex

Meralco Avenue, Pasig City, Philippines 1600 Telefax:

(632) 8634-1072; 8634-1054; 8631-4985

Email Address: blr.lrqad@deped.gov.ph *