INTERSUBJECTIVITY

Husserl’s Life

Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), the founding figure of the philosophical movement known as
phenomenology, was born in Prossnitz, what is now in the Czech Republic. He studied science,
philosophy, and mathematics at the universities of Leipzig, Berlin, and Vienna and wrote his doctoral
thesis on the calculus of variations. In 1901 Husserl was given tenure at the University of Göttingen,
where he held a teaching position for 16 years. Here he developed his theories on phenomenology, a
distinct school of thought that has become a central concern even up to this time, and where his idea of
intentionality and intersubjectivity can be found. From about 1905, Husserl’s students formed
themselves into a group with a common style of life and work, referring to Husserl as “the master”. But
the rise of World War I interrupted the circle formed by Husserl’s younger colleagues. The death of his
son Wolfgang in 1916 also added to the injury of Husserl, where he observed a moment to keep silent
professionally during that time of mourning.

In 1916, an appointment was made to Husserl for his professorship at Freiburg in Breisgu. There he
retained until his retirement in 1928. During his stay at Freiburg, he became an influence of Martin
Heidegger and Rudolf Carnap as Husserl’s students. It was also during this time when he continued to
work several manuscripts that would be published after his death and more notably, his unique concept
of Phenomenology was developed. But after his retirement, he continued to make use of the Freiburg
library until denied by the anti-Jewish legislation passed by the National Socialists (Nazis) in April 1933.
The rise of the Nazis in Germany also caused Husserl to definitively break with Heidegger.

Husserl died of pleurisy, a serious disease of the lungs, on April 28 1938 (Good Friday) near Freiburg,
Germany.

Phenomenology and Intersubjectivity

Phenomenology is a term in philosophy which ascribes to the idea of phenomenon or

phenomena. It looks at the relationship between the world on one hand, and the senses that experience
the world on the other. It seeks to describe phenomenon or how others describe experiences, free from
any theories about their causal explanations or their objective reality. Hence, phenomenology aims at
discovering how consciousness refers to objects outside of itself (the consciousness).

Husserl uses this phenomenological method at theorizing for Intersubjectivity, what it means
and how should it be understood. Husserl describes this method as ‘sociological transcendental
philosophy’, it is “the reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-
person point of view” (Smith, 2007). It uncovers phenomena by extracting its essential features of
experiences and the essence of what we experience. Hence, it digs into the lived experience of the
subject as if the subject were a subjective transcendental unit.

This discussion seeks to simplify ‘Intersubjectivity’ by contextualizing as to how it applies to

everyday world, and even extends to the need to recognize other’s differences and conclude why we
need to create this environment of mutual respect and understanding.
Husserl’s frame of reference for the development of his Intersubjectivity is deeply rooted on the
‘Intentionality’ of Brentano which is used to explain the manner in which we understand otherness.
What follows next is the elaboration of this concept as a feature to appreciate Intersubjectivity.

Intentionality as a Cornerstone of Intersubjectivity

Intentionality centralizes on ideas, about what human persons think and how we think about them. As
for Brentano, intentionality embodies the idea that the human mind is the only thing in the whole
universe that is able to direct itself toward other things outside of itself. This describes objects which
actually exist in the physical world and objects as perceived by us which now lie in the realm of human
understanding. In short, intentionality describes the relationship between the physical object and the
mental phenomenon which construes it. A house, for example, to intend it means it must be present to
me. But while I go to school and leave my house, the idea of it remains in my head as is. But I sometimes
create the anxiety about what happens to my house when I am off for work. Are burglars coming in?
Will there be good Samaritans to look over my house and then report suspicions to the authority if
somebody breaks in? The example above is a subject-directed experience. The intentionality of my idea
triggers this reaction, not the house itself. In other words, it is the built-in concept in the mind which
helps the mind in perceiving reality. Whether the burglary occurs or not, it is the mind itself, having
intentionality of its own, that creates the level of anxiety that is made to be experienced by me. Hence,
Intentionality cannot conceive of something that transcends us, otherwise we could not intend it, or
more simply we might not speak of it.

Husserl describes that “intentionality is not the intentional in-existence of the object within the
consciousness; instead, it describes the relationship of a subject to the objects of consciousness”
(Ferrarillo, 2012). The intentional act is an objectifying act since it makes an object present for
consciousness. The object is present to me because it is in my lived experience. Despite the multiplicity
of interests one can attribute to an object, he can decide where among those interests the meaning of
the object given to him should be.

The Problem of Intersubjectivity

The discussion in the previous section regarding Intentionality is an essential consideration in Husserl’s
epoche as a means in attaining Intersubjectivity.

However, human persons have tendencies not to do so (bracket them) because of the failure of
cognizance to things surrounding them, where we, as persons, place ourselves in this position of natural
attitude, which is usually unrecognized as a perspective. Husserl notes,

The natural attitude of the mind is not concerned with the critique of knowledge. In such an attitude,
our attention is tuned - in acts of intuition and thought - to things given to us, and given as a matter of
course, even though they are given in different ways and in different modes of being according to the
source and level of our knowledge of them. (Husserl)

What we observe about the world contained by this natural attitude is an object factually present to us.
The world around us, viewed naturally, is the world that we know, that is familiar to us, the sphere of
our ordinary and everyday life. What this natural attitude implies is that objects or ideas or people that
we see are simply real and straightforwardly existent. Everything that we see around us is a factual
object. It leaves us no room for cultivating our creativity and art in making full sense of every object
there is. For instance, the house where we live in, the plants we see in the garden and the people we
talk to everyday are just facts. There is no way for us to question the presence of these objects because
we precisely view them as facts, and they are just simply there.

Epoché, the Bracketing of Assumptions

Again, Husserl says that this natural attitude poses the problem to understand an object holistically. To
set things straight, Husserl emphasizes that we should bracket (epoché) all the assumptions we have
about the world when we experience things, so we will be able to see past all the layers of meaning that
have built up around them. It means that we need to set aside our perceived assumptions on an object
in order to welcome other assumptions. Doing this enables us to appreciate new possibilities
(Stevenson, 2002).

To bracket is to do away with the captivation of the human-acceptedness. The epoché is a procedure
where we no longer take for granted everything which is conceived so ordinary by us: our bodies, the
culture, our everyday language, and a countless other facets of our existence. Husserl writes beautifully,

The universal depriving of acceptance, this 'inhibiting' or 'putting out of play' of all positions taken
toward the already-given Objective world and, in the first place, all existential positions (those
concerning being, illusion, possible being, being likely, probable, etc.), — or, as it is also called, this
phenomenological epoché and 'parenthesizing' of the Objective world — therefore does not leave us
confronting nothing. On the contrary we gain possession of something by it; and what we (or, to speak
more precisely, what I, the one who is meditating) acquire by it is my pure living, with all the pure
subjective processes making this up, and everything in them, purely as meant in them: the universe of
‘phenomena' in the …phenomenological sense. — from The ego cogito as transcendental subjectivity, in
Cartesian Meditations.

The very first beginning of this phenomenological intersubjective analysis is given by Reduction.
Reduction is the act of getting in touch with one’s own intentionality before scientific attitudes or the
previously discussed natural attitudes have had a chance to crowd it out. In other words, Reduction is
my act of identifying my own intentionality in the way I personally see things after I have bracketed out
the intentionality of science.

The Reduction designates the inquirer’s passage from a natural attitude, in which the subject naively
participates in the world, to a phenomenological attitude, in which the subject reflects upon what he
already lived and is living in order to discern the essence of a lived-experience (Erlebnisse). (Ferrarillo,
2012)

It is therefore through the bracketing of assumptions, and by reduction, which lead to the understanding
of Intersubjectivity. It is by suspending my biases from the dictates of science, even religion and
philosophy, that creates a fulfilled self, an intersubjective self that the world demands.

Avoid Labeling
 Taking into consideration the existence of discrimination of human persons in terms of race,
gender, religion, or even their physical abilities, the phenomenological reduction seeks to discover
something which could be of importance in order to delineate ourselves from the natural attitude
shifting to a more intersubjective spirit, by reclaiming our consciousness from assumptions already
imposed by others. The general conception about marginalization in our society, as perceived by
ordinary persons, is not so much of a struggle to give an end to it. We say that it is already part of our
system, it is already there, and we can never set all the individuals to be equal. Yes, inequality is always
present in the real world, but that does not mean that we just have to agree on this imposition that
since it is already there, then nothing can be done about it at all. We need to give fresh eyes to the
situation on marginalization of minorities as well as persons with disabilities. Setting aside our prejudices
is a great help in acknowledging others by way of giving importance to everyone, free from the shackles
of discrimination.

There is no longer the implant of meaning to things in the world. Labeling the cripple as cripple in our
ordinary sense of the term, that is incapable of doing things like what normal people do, is no longer
acceptable. Again, Husserl emphasizes that one takes and should take possession by giving meaning to
it. There is more to that person than where we categorize his capabilities lie. Furthermore, same holds
true to members of Indigenous Community, epoché is giving light to create mutual value of respect.

More importantly, while we are aware of the differences among ourselves because of race, gender, or
even because of the physical ability to live, one cannot deny of the unitary characteristic which will
somehow connect us from certain barriers we create among ourselves, the fact of our being person, one
who wants, one who wants to know, and one who wants to act upon knowing. But this definition of a
person will be more appreciated if one takes a step to know whether it violates the intersubjectivity put
forward by Husserl or not.

Marcel’s Life

Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) is a French Roman Catholic existentialist philosopher, a dramatist, and a
critic, who insisted that individuals can only be understood as embodied and involved in specific
situations. Marcel was born in Paris, a city where he also died in 1973. He was the only child of a notable
diplomat. His mother died when he was four and was raised by his aunt whom his father later married.
At the age of 8 he began writing plays, and as an adult he would achieve a reputation as a playwright as
well as a philosopher. Marcel also served as a teacher same as Husserl. But it is worthy to note that
during World War I, he became a Red Cross official whose job was obtaining news of wounded and
missing soldiers and contacting their relatives. This experience which requires demanding encounters
with people served as an inspiration for Marcel to establish and continue his work on Intersubjectivity.

Presence and Intersubjectivity

Human beings live not only by sustaining rations of food to consume in a day nor shelter to protect from
colds, but there is a much greater aspect of how we should perceive our being to live in this world. As it
is hard to acknowledge the idea of ourselves as separable from our bodies, we cannot think of
separating ourselves from the concrete situations in which we find ourselves. Marcel emphasizes, “I am
my habitual surroundings in the same way that I am my body.” We need to interact with others. We
have to build relationships, and we have to be available to others. These ideas are discussed by Marcel
in his Presence as the basis to experience Intersubjectivity.

‘Presence’ plays a significant part in in Marcel’s entire philosophy of life and its meaning. Presence
includes how one experiences another being. This recognition of another being is a key part of
presence, and one that takes some reflection in order to understand. Presence does not only involve
physical presence of objects. There may be thousands of people you see around you, but only a very
small fraction of them will appear as “present,” in the way that Marcel intends. There is an essential
quality about presence that makes it different than another human being in the same physical location
as us.

The concept of Presence for Marcel is mysterious because it transcends the objective physical fact of
being-with each other. But this mystery of being does not mean that it is not comprehensible.
Something can be known out of it by analyzing it. But no solution can be offered to a mystery because it
is not a problem. Mystery is that wherein I am engaged. It is not a part of me, but my total being is
engaged in mystery.

There is an order where the subject finds himself in the presence of something entirely beyond his
grasp. I would add that if the word “transcendent” has any meaning it is here—it designates the
absolute, unbridgeable chasm yawning between the subject and being, insofar as being evades every
attempt to pin it down (Marcel, Tragic Wisdom and Beyond, 1973).

Presence is concerned ‘with recognizing the self as a being-among-beings, and acknowledging the
relevance of others’ experiences to the self, as a being, not just the here-ness of a mere physical object’
(Hernandez).

For example, a teacher has to deal with day-to-day conversation with students in class. In order to
discuss the concepts, one has to interact with the other. But it is possible to have interaction with
students which does not transcend each other’s experiences. If the student does not make himself
present to me, and I, the teacher, do not make myself present to him, then we will be farther from each
other than a loved one who is miles away from me. He might as well not even be in the room because
any conversations we may have will remain on a physical, non-transcendent level. For Marcel, this kind
of communication does not have communion, ‘the other understands what I say to him, but he does not
understand me’ (Marcel, The Mystery of Being, 1950). I feel not fully myself when the other does not
manifest his presence to me, but when someone is present to me, there is a sort of self-revelation that I
could not otherwise have achieved without the other’s being present to me. Communication, thus, must
have communion, where a subject relates with the beings of other subjects to whom he confronts his
daily life.

It is worthy to note that there must be reciprocity involved in presence, as gearing towards the
consideration of intersubjectivity. The other becomes present to us when we are available to them and,
in turn, they are available to us. There is also a need to communicate with the other, a two-way
approach that does not neglect interrelations. This relationship between two presences is the basis of
intersubjectivity.
Intersubjectivity means the relation between two selves as subjects. Accordingly, it is a subject to
subject relation, not subject to object relation, because this relation is founded with harmony with each
other, and not domination. It is not egocentric in that it does not treat the other as a means to advance
one’s personal interest. Presence as mentioned earlier presupposes openness to the other. Thus,
presence is intersubjective. Active engagement with the lives of others is a manifestation of this
intersubjective spirit, commonly expressed in friendship and marriage, grounded on mutual recognition.
“esse est co-esse: to exist is to co-exist, to participate in the fullness of Being (God) through love, fidelity
and faith.” (Dy, 2001) It is through this relation with others where the growth of our society totally
depends. Everyone must be open and must be able to meet without allowing anyone to be dominated
or utilized.

Valuing Differences

But how is this intersubjectivity of Marcel useful in addressing the need to recognize individual
differences? While intersubjectivity is essentially communicative, it attempts to cure ignorance among
many which, at some point, oppress the marginalized sectors in the society. And while intersubjectivity
guarantees genuine openness with the other, it invites the value of respect which must be upheld in a
seemingly unfair society.

SOCRATES ON DEATH

Socrates was a moral and social critic who questioned the

Athenians politics and society. This earned him a credit of a very
influential person as well as controversial figure in his time at
Athens. His accusation emanates from his paradoxical wisdom which
threatened the prominent Athenians. He was condemned to death
through the charges of Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. He was charged
of corrupting the mind of the youth and not believing in the gods of
the state. He was sentenced to death by drinking a poison. The
“Phaedo” of Plato describes the death of Socrates. I was accounted
that Socrates refused to accept the pleas of Crito to escape from
prison. After he drunk the poison, he was asked to walk until his leg
would numb. Socrates later couldn’t feel his legs until the numbness
reached his heart. Before he died, he told Crito: “Crito, we owe a
rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt.”

Socrates’ idea about death is reflected in Plato’s latest dialogue the Phaedo which describes Plato’s
belief in the immortality of the soul. Death is usually understood as one of the two possibilities such as
either annihilation or a migration of the soul to another place. But for Socrates, none of these
possibilities will become our valid reason to fear death because if it is a complete annihilation then, it is
a state of unconsciousness. Complete annihilation simply suggests nothingness and this in itself is good
for it implies tranquility. On the other hand, if it is a migration to another place then, this could be an
opportunity for greater experiences like a company with the sages which in itself is also good. Thus, in
either way, death is good.
 In the last speech of Socrates which he delivered before he died he emphasized the importance
of facing death with confidence. He said: “Now it is time that we were going, I to die and you to live; but
no one knows who among us could have happier state except God”. Here, Socrates revealed his attitude
towards death that in it there is nothing to be afraid. Instead, death could be the reason why life must
be lived. This relationship of death to life was implied in Socrates’ last words: “Crito, we ought to offer a
cock to Aslepus”. Here, he articulated that death is the cure for life because Aslepus was the god of
healing. His referral to an offering of a cock means the offering of a sacrifice which the people used to do
when they suffered from ailment. They did this sacrifice before they slept hoping to wake up cured.
Thus, death is a curative sleep.

Socrates’ attitude towards death may help us discern that part of his philosophy is actually
learning how to die. Learning in this sense is not simply knowledge of something because Socrates in his
part claims of nothing that he knows: “I know that I know that I do not know”. This expression of
Socrates’ wisdom and humility implies that Philosophy teaches not the quantifiable knowledge but the
wisdom that every philosopher untiringly loves. Socrates does not claim to know of anything which of
course includes the issue of which among death and life is better than the other. This does not only give
way to his claim that only God knows but also reflects his humility and total dependence on God.

Socrates’ uncertainty of whichever is better between life and death suggests that amidst such
uncertainty the wisest course of action of a philosopher is to learn how to die. This must begin with the
task of cultivating proper attitude towards death as an inescapable reality that anyone will eventually
face. The message here is clear. Even if it is impossible to ascertain the arrival of death in our lives and
what it will bring when it comes, we must never be afraid to face it for after all it will certainly come,
now or later. Learning how to die is learning how to prepare for death. This means learning how to live.
We must learn how to live in order to be ready to face our death for according to Socrates, the
“unexamined life is not worth living”.

MARTIN HEIDEGGER’S PERSPECTIVES ON DEATH

Heidegger was born on September 26, 1889 in Messkirch in

south-west Germany to a Catholic family. He is widely known
as the most original, influential and controversial philosopher
in the 20th century.
The way he faced his own death is not well accounted. The only
thing very clear about it is that he remains intellectually active
until the very end of his life. He died in Freiburg on May 26,
1976. He was buried in the churchyard in Messkirch.

In his work Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) completed in 1926, Heidegger shares his reflection about
death. For him, Being and Time simply means being is time. Since man is a being, he is time. This implies
that man’s existence is temporary because it is bounded by birth and death. In other words, he is a finite
being. This finitude of man challenges him to cultivate meaning in his own existence. Thus, in order to
understand what it means to be an authentic human being, man must learn to see his life within the
horizon of his death. This is why Heidegger describes man as a being toward death (Sein zum Tode). For
him, death is man’s ultimate project. It is the heart of his life because by the moment he is born he is old
enough to die.

The concept of Heidegger about man as a being toward death emanates from his understanding of what
being is. He says that man as a being is “to be there”. Man has to be there because in the original state
of his existence, he is thrown into the world without having chosen it to be such. No one simply chooses
to exist nor decides on what state of life he likes to embrace. Being “thrown into existence” is therefore
beyond man’s capacity to choose to exist or not. More specifically, everyone just finds the fact of
himself ‘being there’, ‘being thrown’ or put simply ‘already existing’. This means that by the moment
that man is conscious about his existence such consciousness is only about himself who already exists
not on how he exists, nor on how he chooses to exist.

Being thrown into an existence, one cannot but wonder about his being which exists in this world. The
self realizes that his existence faces countless possibilities and the only one among them which is most
certain is death though its moment of arrival into his life remains unknown. Hence, the self can only
become what it truly is if it confronts death and makes a meaning out of its finitude. Since man’s being is
finite, then, the meaning of being human consists in the cultivation of its finitude. This means that man
has to find the meaning of his existence within the context of that which is bounded by birth and death.
For Heidegger, in order to accomplish his project man needs to search for the meaning of his existence.
This opens the horizon of two fundamental types of existence – the unauthentic (“das Man”) and
authentic (“Entschlossenheit”).

The unauthentic life is characterized by its banality (opposite of originality). The subject or actor of this
kind of life is not the individual self, but an anonymous and featureless public ego – the “they” (“das
Man”). The individual self loses its identity and personal responsibilities in favor of the “they” by
constantly taking cues from the conventions of the masses. In other words, the self is so anxious of what
the “they” would think, hiding itself behind the anonymity of the masses. Thus, this self refuses to take
responsibility of whatever possibilities of his individual existence. The result is self-estrangement. The
self loses itself into the others and become stranger to its own existence and eventually disintegrates
into the irrelevancy of everyday life. This existence is unauthentic because the self has no identity or no
originality of its own. Its existence is unidentifiable or undistinguishable from that of others or the
masses. This type of existence simply geared towards nothingness.

A typical example of an unauthentic existence is a student who succumbs to the pressures and dictates
of his peers in everything he does. This student becomes too dependent on others and too anxious on
what they would think about him. He always concedes to their decision in order to please them. He
cannot decide for his own because the “they” decide for himself. What is important for him is the “they”
with whom he loses his very own identity because he cannot take ownership in everything he does.
Everything is associated or having the face of the “they” (others). This student will soon find himself
stranger to his very own self and worst come to worst, ends guilty of delinquent actions, which without
peer pressures (the “they”), would never thought of doing them such as rape, murder, drug addiction,
etc.

The authentic life or existence is the assertion of one’s individuality. To live authentically means “to
exist” and to exist means “to stand out” (lt. “ex-tare”). To stand out means to emerge from the
anonymous masses and to accept one’s situations with its limitations. To live authentically therefore
means to be conscious of one self. This self consciousness includes the discovery that the banality of the
world is vanity and disappears into nothingness. The universal sense of nothingness produces anguish.
Anguish is not synonymous with fear for in fear there is an object conceived being dangerous – as object
of fear. On the contrary, anguish is a dread of an indefinite nothing (something unknown) and because it
is not known, it is a dread of nothing in particular.

An authentic existence is first and foremost the awareness that men and things are fashioned by
nothingness. I exist, I am nothing; but I come from nothing. Then, from such awareness of nothingness, I
accept my existence and all the possibilities involved in my present situation. Since I am conscious of my
existence, I also am aware that I am a finite being and that my potentialities as finite being depends on
time. But time tells me that as a being I have my own end. This means I am a being destined for death
because death is one of the realities of my existence. Since I accept my existence and all its
potentialities and possibilities, I must also accept my death. It is only through facing it that I will come to
understand what it means to be. I must not be afraid of it but instead, I must work for it positively for
my authentic existence is destined for it.

The above concepts of Heidegger have four implications for us. First, we are beings towards death
because when we are born into this world we are uncertain of countless possibilities except for one
reality which is death. As we cultivate meaning of our existence, our death appears to us as the only
reality that will definitely happen in our future, sooner or later. This means that from the very moment
that we start to exist our journey towards our death immediately begins, so we are old enough to die.
We are finite beings. This is why for Heidegger we are beings toward death.

Second, death is our project because as the only reality which is certain among many possibilities, it is
also the most reasonable goal of our endeavors. Practical reasoning will definite conform to the
argument that if we prepare for something which we are not certain or which we do not know, the more
that it is reasonable for us to prepare for that which we surely know. Thus, we must take death as our
project because even if we cannot design how it will happen to our lives, we can surely prepare on how
we will face it. This preparation to face our death (as beings toward death) is indeed our project.

Third, in order to accomplish our project we must choose to live an authentic life – a life that has its own
individuality or identity. Such life is not governed nor enslaved by the “they” or others. We must
exercise our utmost capacity to make decisions and be accountable of their consequences. It does not
mean we must be alone in our existence because in order to assert our individuality or identity we must
be with others. As we live with others, we must not forget that we have our own individuality or unique
identity. It does not mean further that we will close our doors for them. We actually learn from them,
with them and through them but as we actualize such learning, we will remember Heidegger that we
(not they) are the actors and therefore we ought to take full responsibility of our actions.

Fourth, as we live an authentic life we come to realize that as finite beings we are destined to die.
Though we can never ascertain its arrival in our lives, the fact remains that we can never escape from it.
As we accept our existence and all it possibilities, we will likewise accept our death as one of the
possibilities but definitely the only one that is most certain among them. We must not be afraid of it
because such fear will never change the fact that we will die sooner or later. We must therefore
cultivate positive attitudes toward it because it is only with positive attitudes that we can treat death as
our project, something that we have to work for. Working for it as our project simply implies self
preparations which depend greatly on how we want to face it.
DEATH FOR ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Thomas Aquinas prepared for the coming of his death. According to some accounts of his later years, he
was invited by Gregory X together with St. Bonaventure to participate in the deliberation during the
general council opened at Lyon in May 1, 1274. However, when he embarked on foot, in January, 1274
he fell to the ground near Terracina because he was already weak physically. He was sent to the
monastery of the Cistercian monks and upon entering, he whispered to his companion: "This is my rest
forever and ever: here will I dwell, for I have chosen it" (Psalm 131:14). When Father Reginald asked him
to remain at the castle, St. Thomas replied: "If the Lord wishes to take me away, it is better that I be
found in a religious house than in the dwelling of a lay person."

St. Thomas was touched by the kindness and attentiveness of the

Cistercians: "Whence comes this honour", he exclaimed, "that servants
of God should carry wood for my fire!" At the urgent request of
the monks he dictated a brief commentary on the Canticle of Canticles.
When he was on his near death experience he received the extreme unction.
When the sacred Viaticum was administered in his room, he uttered the
following act of faith.

If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than

that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I
firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus
Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is
in this Sacrament . . . I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for
Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached;
Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything
was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I
wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written
anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit
all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in
whose obedience I now pass from this life.
In order to understand the philosophical perspectives of St. Thomas Aquinas about death, we need to
understand first his philosophy of the human person. For him, man is a composite of body and soul
(Matter - Form). This composite signifies unity rather than duality. The body and soul are not two
substances within man for these two together make up only one substance. The body alone is not a man
just as the soul alone can never be a man. Man is a unity of body and soul. The soul substantiates the
body and the body is necessary for the soul to exercise all its vital functions. These vital functions of man
(if not all) are the unified functions of the body and soul. This is so because the soul is the form of the
body or the principle of its life. Through the soul, all bodily activities happened to be.

To simplify the concept of the unity of body and soul, let us examine the intellectual nature of man as
the activity of the soul. Man’s knowledge and intelligence require sensations (senses) and sensation
requires bodily organs such as eyes, ears, nose, mouth, etc. So, man’s knowledge which proceeds from
his senses can never be realized without the bodily organs. For example, man’s idea of yellowness
proceeds from his sensation of something which is yellow, but he cannot sense something as yellow
unless he has an eye (bodily organ) to see such object which he perceives as colored yellow. In Summa
Theologiae 1a 76.1, St. Thomas Aquinas said: “a man cannot be merely a mind without a body because it
is one and the same man who is conscious both that he understands and that he senses. But one cannot
sense without a body, and therefore the body must be a part of man”.

St. Thomas Aquinas further explains that the soul is the spiritual element in man. It is within this
viewpoint that St. Thomas understanding of man’s death comes in. He said that the reality of death can
be credited partly to his nature and partly to sin. In terms of nature, man’s death is attributed to his
material element that is why death is conceived to be natural. In other words, it is natural for the body
to die because it is composed of matter. But, by virtue of spiritual element in man’s composition, he is
not only a being towards death but also a being towards life. If death is natural to man because of his
body, the opposite (unnatural) is also true to his soul. This means that it is not natural for the soul to die
because unlike the body it is immaterial. There is indeed something in the soul that is apart from the
body and which is not subjected to death or which cannot die. This is its intellectual nature which
constitutes the immortal nature of the soul. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that although death is a
natural tendency of the body, it is not the final destiny of man because man is not purely matter (body).
Death is a reality and there is no solution to it if it is not considered in the point of view of the soul.

From the view point of the soul, man’s destiny is not death but the First Cause known by us as
God. The quest for the fulfillment or satisfaction of reason, understanding, or intelligence cannot be
stopped until it rests in God. For example, we can only be satisfied of our search for knowledge of
something when we discover its ultimate cause. But this ultimate cause is very illusive because once we
are about to reach it, it slips away inviting for further search. The process continues because the answer
to our question is the beginning of another question. Then, we will end up thinking of God as the
primary or ultimate answer to our quest. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas said that the natural desire of
the intellect is to see God in order to be fulfilled. If this is so, then this is man’s ultimate purpose,
wherein man can live forever.

There is a need to come up with a deeper analysis of the unity of the body and soul - one (body)
which has a nature of dying and the other (soul) which lives forever. St. Thomas said that the soul is the
principle of life of the body. He also claims that the vision of God is the fulfillment of the soul. So, if
death is not man’s ultimate end, it follows also that the body is not ought to die forever because soul
alone is not man. But the reality of the body is that it does die. But when it dies it does not mean man
dies because without a soul it is not a man. Similarly, when the soul lives, it cannot be called man
because it has no body. So, to speak of the destiny of man we cannot mean the destiny of the soul
alone because as repeatedly said, a soul alone is not man. Hence, the body must be part of such destiny.
The permanent division of these two composite is unnatural and even a violent condition because
naturally, they ought to be just one substance. This is how the notion of life after death is derived. This is
not for the soul because the soul cannot die. This is attributed to a being that can die and live after its
death. It can be referred to the body because the body dies, but it cannot be in the state of death
forever because such is an eternal separation from the soul which in reality unnatural. So definitely, for
the body to have life after its death, it must gain again its principle of life, which we call soul. The body
and soul must reunite in order to realize their natural union in their ultimate destiny. This is what we
meant by resurrection of the dead.

Although, the resurrection of the dead is a natural necessity to materialize the natural union of body and
soul, we need to consider that neither the body nor the soul has the power to resurrect themselves.
And, no one on earth possesses such power as well. It can never be explained by reason alone. This is
where the role of faith comes in. Without our faith, our resurrection, though understood as the natural
consequence of our nature as composite of body and soul, remain absurd. Our reason can only
speculate why resurrection ought to happen but as to how it happens remains unresolved. Our faith will
tell us that we need to experience the bible, revelation and grace of God in order to understand
resurrection.

Through faith in the bible we come to believe in our original intimacy which is unblemished by
death. The story of creation stipulates that man in its original state is not destined to die (Before the fall
Adam and Eve, they were not mortal). Through man’s intimacy with God, and through God’s love and
grace, man enjoys the privilege of having dominion overall things. It is only after such intimacy with God
is stained by sin that death comes in the picture of man’s existence. Sin alienates man from his original
justice – an intimacy with his creator. So, aside from the fact of the nature of the body, SIN becomes the
second nature of man’s death. This is called the death of the soul which led to the death of the body.
Although the soul cannot die by virtue of its immortal nature, it is like dead by the fact that it loses its
communion with God, the God who gives life to it so that it can give life to the body. Sin is therefore the
cause of man’s deeper tragedy that is death.

This is how our faith in God’s grace comes in. Without grace, our experience of death becomes
horrifying because it implies perpetual separation of our body and soul. Life is supposedly eternal but
because of the death of the soul caused by sin, it cannot unite with someone eternal, and, even if it
does, the body cannot follow that state where the soul is. Without grace, man remains in this unfulfilled
state. However, grace changes everything. The man who believes in grace believes that there are
twofold resurrections which correspond to twofold deaths. For the death of the soul, we have the
resurrection of the soul and sanctifying grace. For the death of the body we have the resurrection of the
dead, which is the perfect completion of the resurrection of the soul.

What does it imply to our attitudes towards death? The answer is to imitate the attitude of our
Lord Jesus Christ towards his very own painful death. For us, the terrifying fact about death is that it is
painful and of course unpleasant. But by virtue of our reason and faith we know that death is neither the
end of everything nor a state of ridiculous unknown. Through our faith in the grace of God, we are
confident that there is life after death. We believe that if we live our lives in union with God while we
are here on earth, we will live forever with Him in life after death by taking part in the resurrection of
Christ. The only problem of death is that it is painful. But a man who is convinced of God’s grace has the
courage to undergo such pains with the conviction that after it, he would attain his perpetual intimacy
and union with God. However, the real problem of death is when someone knows what lies ahead of it
yet faces it unprepared by living in the state of sinfulness.
DEATH ACCORDING TO THE TEACHINGS OF HINDUISM

Hinduism is polytheistic and perhaps one of the oldest religions in the world. It has no founder and no
date of origin, though it is believed to originate in India as early 3,500 BCE.

Hinduism teaches reincarnation, the belief that living organisms will undergo the series of cycle of birth,
death and rebirth. This teaching indicates that the present life is the result of the series of new lives in
new physical bodies. When a person dies for example, his soul will be reborn to another body, and when
his new body also dies, he will again be reborn to another body. This Hindus’ belief is explained by their
doctrine of karma or action which asserts that the quality of one’s life is highly dependent on his
previous life or lives. If one is healthier, wealthier, and spiritually rich in his present life, it means that
such person had accumulated good karmas (good actions) in his previous life or lives. However, if he is
sickly, materially poor, and ignorant in his present life, his previous life or lives had been dominated by
bad karmas (bad actions). This doctrine which is also called as the law of sowing and reaping implies that
we need to accumulate good actions (good karmas) in our present life in order for us to have a better
state in our future or next life.

Reincarnation is associated with caste system. Their society is characterized by four caste
divisions such as Brahmans, or priests; Kshatriyas, or warriors; Vaisyas, or artisans; and Sudras, or
servants. Other kinds of life or existence belong to the outcaste. From the four castes, they came up
with 300 hundred subcastes which are also broken down into thousands of subdivisions. The outcastes
are also subdivided into numerous divisions. Although the caste restrictions in terms of occupation and
social contracts have been lessened today, the important (major) aspects of caste restrictions are still
practiced.

Hinduism emphasizes two dominant ways for us to be released from the series of death and
rebirth (Moksha). The first way is through the accumulation of good karmas (good actions) or we say
through moral maturity. When we accumulate good karmas in our present life, then, our self will remain
with God. The second way is by discovering the self-God within us. This way stresses that we can directly
achieve our final goal and be with God without necessarily be reborn to another body. This is possible
through disciplined reflection and meditation. However, it shall be noted that even if these are two
different ways in achieving our final goal or end, these are closely interconnected. We need to be
morally mature in our actions in order for us to experience God in our inner self. Hence, in Hinduism, we
can be released from the series of death and rebirth (moksha) and achieve the sate of nirvana if we are
morally and spiritually mature.

THE TEACHING OF BUDDHISM ON DEATH

Buddhism is based on the teaching of Siddhartha Gautama (566 - 486 B.C.) who was known as Buddha
which means “awakened or enlightened one”. He tirelessly traveled and taught until he died at the age
of 80. The manner of his death was not accounted except for his last words to his followers such as:
"Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They
are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."

Buddhism teaches the impermanence of life and of everything. The Buddhists believe in inevitability of
death because every one of us will eventually die as a natural process of birth, old age, death, joy,
sorrow, pains, grief and despair. But, in Buddhism death is not the end of life because of reincarnation
wherein when someone dies he will be born again in another realm of existence. The next life is the
result of the actions in previous life through the law of karma (cause and effect). This law of karma (law
of cause and effect) states that our present life is the result of karmic accumulation (accumulated
actions) whether positive or negative. Accumulation of good karma will result to good life and the
accumulation of bad karma will result to a life of suffering either in the present and future lives.

Reincarnation as described by Buddhism, is a process wherein through the karmic law, the spirit
of the dead will be reborn in one of the 6 realms whichever is suitable to his karmic accumulation. These
6 realms are as follows: heaven, human beings, Asura, hungry ghost, animal and hell. These places are
not permanent and nobody remains in these places forever. Heaven consists of 37 different levels
wherein beings experience long lasting happiness due to the absence of suffering. Human life is the life
that we are very familiar with. We can repeatedly be reborn in this kind of life depending on our karmic
accumulation. In our next human existence we may be poor or rich, healthy or sickly, etc. Asura is a
spiritual state of Demi-Gods but their state is contrary to the happy state of the gods in heaven. Unlike
us they see the gods in heaven and so they compete with them. They are constantly jealous of their
superiority over them and so they are constantly dissatisfied of their state. Hungry Ghost is the spiritual
state of those who committed excessive deeds of evil and obsessed with foods and drinks which they
cannot experience. Animal is a realm where the spirits of humans are reborn if they have killed animals
and if they committed many other evil acts. Hell is a realm wherein the spirits of humans are reborn in a
constant state of intense pains described as the horrific state of existence.

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the attainment of nirvana or enlightenment which is the state
of total spiritual satisfaction. This is a state of liberation from the limitation of existence. This is obtained
when someone is liberated from the series of rebirth within the 6 realms of existence, either up or
down. The attainment of the state of nirvana is only possible through the extinction of desire or craving
and those who have attained this state are called Buddhas. Hence, Buddha teaches that we should
prepare for our death by cleansing our mind and by refraining from being attached to things. We should
learn to discipline ourselves and be able to let go or be released from our desires or cravings – the cause
of our suffering. This is possible by adopting a series of moral attitudes, beliefs and values known as the
eightfold path that leads to the elimination of suffering namely; right views, right aims, right speech,
right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right contemplation. What is right for
Buddhism is the practice of the middle way (middle path) or avoidance of extreme.