Phil.of Human person

1. How does Heidegger explain “living as authentic existence”? Discuss his concept of

being in the world.

Living as authentic existence

 Authentic existence can only come into being when individuals arrive at the realisation of who they are and grasp the fact that each human being is a distinctive entity. Once human beings realise that they have their own destiny to fulfill, then their concern with the world will no longer be the concern to do as the masses do, but can become an ‘authentic’ concern to fulfill their real potentiality in the world.

Heidegger described the self of everyday Dasein as the ‘they-self’, “which we distinguish from the authentic Self – that is, from the Self which has been taken hold of in its own way [eigens ergriffenen]. As they-self, the particular Dasein has been dispersed into the ‘they’, and must first find itself.” And further “If Dasein discovers the world in its own way [eigens] and brings it close, if it discloses to itself its own authentic Being, then this discovery of the ‘world’ and this disclosure of Dasein are always accomplished as a clearing-away of concealments and obscurities, as a breaking up of the disguises with which Dasein bars its own way.” Heidegger   said that deliberation on these matters have brought about a solid understanding of Dasein bringing the average everydayness of Being-in-the-world into view.

Heidegger felt that the all-determining focal point of our Being-in-the-world was being ignored because the daily realities of our existence are so trite and numerous but, for Heidegger, ‘knowing’ was a kind of Being and Dasein only discovers itself when it comprehends reality. Knowledge is not an inexplicable bound from subject to object and return (Steiner 1978), But as soon as the ‘phenomenon of knowing the world’  is grasped it is interpreted, unfortunately, in a ‘superficial’ or formal manner. The evidence for this is the procedure (still customary today) of setting up knowing as a ‘relation between subject and Object’ – a procedure in which there lurks as much ‘truth’ as vacuity. But subject and object do not really coincide with Dasein and the world. (Hornsby 2010)

Being in the world

 Being-in-the-world is Heidegger's replacement for terms such as subject, object, consciousness, and world. For him, the split of things into subject/object, as we find in the Western tradition and even in our language, must be overcome. Heidegger said that Being-in-the-world is a being-with, and that the understanding of the presentness of others is to exist. However, being-with presents the possibility of comprehending our own Dasein as an everyday Being-with-one-another where we may come to exist not on our own terms, but only in reference to others. In so doing, we eventually come to not be ourselves, and surrender our existence to a formless ‘Theyness’ or alterity.

For Heidegger, the ‘belonging to others’ is a drastic irresponsibility because the ‘they’ deprives the particular Dasein of its own accountability by making every decision and judgement for it. The ‘they’ can do this most easily because it can always be said that ‘they’ were responsible for such and such. Heidegger said that this passivity creates the alienated self, the ‘Man’ who is fatally disburdened of moral autonomy and, therefore, of moral responsibility. This ‘Man’ can know no ethical guilt. Heidegger called this the ‘self of everyday Dasein’ or the ‘they-self’, the total opposite of the solid singularity of a Dasein which has grasped itself. This crucial distinction was important for Heidegger as it is the distinction between an authentic and an inauthentic human existence.

If the human being is really being-in-the-world, then this implies that the world itself is part of the fundamental constitution of human beings. In other words, I am not a free-floating self or ego facing a world of objects that stands over against me. Rather, for Heidegger, I am my world. The world is part and parcel of my being,  the real fabric of my existence. We might capture the sense of Heidegger's thought here by thinking of Dasein not as a subject distinct from a world of objects, but as an experience of openness where mostly my being and that of the world are not distinguished. I am completely fascinated and absorbed by my world, not cut off from it in some sort of "mind" or what Heidegger calls "the cabinet of consciousness"

2. Discuss human as dependent, inter-dependent and independent?

Human as dependent

Humans have, for the most part, taken themselves out of the “natural” world. We often overemphasize technological advances at the expense of the environment. Rapid exploitation of finite natural resources and uncontrolled waste are acceptable in many businesses as the only way to grow. The price of this way of thinking is starting to come into the light. Modern high-tech lifestyles are competitive instead of communal and cooperative. An effect of this competition is the human-created deserts in place of once lush forests. We have polluted virtually every corner of the planet. Instead of taking just what the environment can replenish, we tend to take it all--right now.

Most scientific concepts involve breaking living organisms into parts, labeling those parts, and treating those parts as something somehow separate from the whole organism. Most people believe that the universe is comprised of boundless building materials from which technological progress can flourish. In contrast, in the systems theory, the basic principle underlying life is processes. In a process, one thing depends on another. If one step in the process doesn’t occur, then the subsequent steps cannot occur. The system comes to a halt.

Human as inter-dependent

 From the above perspective, we can see how human beings are dependent on nature and also inter-dependent on each other. A powerful articulation of such respectful interdependence is made in 1854, when the U.S. President made an offer for a large area of Indian land and promised a "reservation" for the Indian people. Chief Seattle's reply, quoted below with modifications, has been described as the most beautiful and profound statement on the environment ever made. It speaks of the inter-dependence of the whole earth on each other (See Kochery 1998).

How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man. The white man’s dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget their beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the body heat of the pony and man – all belong to the same family.

Human as independent

 There’s a big difference in asking “Are we free?” and “Are we really free?”. The former question implies an issue whose answer we are “in the dark” about. The latter format suggests that we are naturally and spontaneously inclined to hold that we are free: recent events or findings have surfaced so as to make us have second thoughts about it all. And this is precisely the case. Of course, we shall not just “take for granted” the fact of our freedom (that would be an unpardonable sin of dogmatism in philosophy): we shall cast about for reasons, evidences, “pointers” that would seem to confirm this “unphilosophical conviction” to which we all subscribe, consciously or unconsciously. After all, we commonsensical people just know we are free: for instance, right now I can reflect on my free reading of this page and realise that there is nothing internally that compels me to go on reading. At any time I can just put it down and go and do something else – it’s all up to me, to me and my freedom. On the other hand, there have been the studies of men like Freud and Skinner who appear to challenge this smug assurance of ours.

Is man free?

At times we feel within ourselves the need to be free, free from the demands and expectations of the society we live in. Since we are so much linked and depended on the society we cannot be really free to be what and who we are to be. It is because our values are based on the values given to us by the society and the media. But we have the real freedom and can be free if we can base our values on Love which will enable us to divest ourselves to attain full self realisation. Because our existence will depend on how we relate to other beings based on love. I am free if the real, deep down “I” is in control of my actions.

3. a) Explain the hierarchy of needs. What are some of the characteristics of the selfactualised

person?

The hierarchy of needs

Abraham Maslow stated that human motivation is based on people seeking fulfillment and change through personal growth, and according to him self-actualized people are those who were fulfilled and dong all they were capable of. He did not equate self actualization with perfection, Self-actualization merely involves achieving ones potential. The hierarchy of needs are biological and physiological needs like air, food, drink, shelter etc, safety needs protection from elements like security, order, law, etc., belongingness and love needs like work group, family, affection etc., esteem needs like self esteem, achievements, status, prestige, etc., cognitive needs like knowledge, meaning etc., Aesthetic needs like appreciation and search for beauty etc., and self actualization needs like realizing personal potential, self-fulfilment etc.

The characteristics of the self-actualized person

Maslow was particularly interested m the characteristics of people whom he considered to have achieved their potential as persons: his list included Albert Einstein, William James, Eleanor Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. Some of the characteristics of self-actualizers and some of the behaviours leading to self-actualisation are shown in the table below. Although individuals achieve self-actualisation in their own unique way, they tend to share certain characteristics. However, self-actualization is a matter of degree, since 'There are no perfect human beings' (Maslow), but we can all be tending to perfect and self-actualised persons.

•           They perceive reality efficiently and can tolerate uncertainty;

•           Accept themselves and others for what they are;

•           Spontaneous in thought and action;

•           Problem-centred (not self-centred);

.          Unusual sense of humour;

.          Able to look at life objectively;

.          Highly creative;

.          Resistant to enculturation, but not purposely unconventional;

.          Concerned for the welfare of humanity;

.          Capable of deep appreciation of basic life-experience;

b) What is the role of human being in the Existentialist Philosophy? Explain.

According to existentialists, human exist first and then each individual spends a lifetime changing their essence and nature – it is finding self and the meaning of life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility. The belief is that people are searching to find out who and what they are throughout life as they make choices based on their experiences, beliefs and outlook, and choices are unique without the necessity of an objective form of truth. They do not think laws and rules are important, what is important is personal choices based on personal responsibilities. They belief that a person is best when struggling against their individual nature, they do not distinguish between soul and body, body is a lived through experience that is an integral part of man’s existence in the world and soul or consciousness is constant openness toward the world, a transcendent relationship with other beings and in-itself. Consciousness is existence itself, is the manifestation of being.

In Existentialist thinkers, the traditional distinction between soul and body is completely eliminated; thus the body is a lived-through experience that is an integral part of man's existence in its relationship with the world. According to Jean Paul Sartre, "In each project of the For-itself, in each perception the body is there; it is the immediate Past in so far as it still touches on the Present which flees it." As such, however, the body is not reduced to a datum of consciousness, to subjective representation. Consciousness, according to Sartre, is constant openness toward the world, a transcendent relationship with other beings and thereby with the in-itself. Consciousness is existence itself, or, as Karl Jaspers says, it is "the manifestation of being." In order to avoid any subjectivistic equivocation, Martin Heidegger went so far as to renounce the use of the term consciousness, preferring the term Dasein, which is more appropriate for designating human reality in its totality. For the same reasons, the traditional opposition between subject and object, or between the self and the nonself, loses all sense in his existentialist understanding of human person. Dasein is always particular and individual.

4. a) Differentiate between philosophical anthropology and cultural anthropology.

The main difference between general anthropology and philosophical anthropology is the method employed. In philosophical anthropology we do not usually do any empirical study. No field study is undertaken. No experiments are carried out. Instead, based on the evidence suggested by other disciplines, philosophers analyse human condition theoretically. Thus many of the central themes of philosophical anthropology – identity, freedom, love, life after death, etc. – are unique to philosophical anthropology.

Cultural anthropology involves the scientific study of the origin, the behaviour, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans. Thus  it is the study of humanity. Anthropology has origins in the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. The term "anthropology", was first used in 1501 by German philosopher Magnus Hundt.

The basic questions that anthropology poses are: "What defines Homo sapiens?", "Who are the ancestors of modern Homo sapiens?" "What are humans' physical traits?", "How do humans behave?", "Why are there variations and differences among different groups of humans?", "How has the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens influenced its social organization and culture?" and so forth

b) What is the difference between ‘self’ and ‘centre of gravity’?

Self

The Brahminical or orthodox (astika) schools of Indian philosophy, especially the Vedantins and the Nyaya-Vaisesika argue that the self or Atman is a substantial but non-material entity. The Katha and Chandogya Upanishads, for example, define the Brahminical conception of the self as follows: The light of the Atman, the spirit is invisible, concealed in all beings. It is seen by the seers of the subtle, when their vision is keen and clear. The Atman is beyond sound and form, without touch and taste and perfume. It is eternal, unchangeable, and without beginning or end: indeed above reasoning. The Upanisads puts it succinctly: “An invisible and subtle essence is the Spirit of the whole universe. That is Reality. That is Truth. THOU ART THAT.”

Centre of gravity: In physics, the centre of gravity is an imaginary point in a body of matter where, for convenience in certain calculations, the total weight of the body may be thought to be concentrated. The  centre of gravity, a well-behaved Newtonian concept is not an atom or a subatomic particle or any other physical item in the world. It has no mass; it has no colour; it has no physical properties at all, except for spatio-temporal location. It is a fine example of what Hans Reichenbach would call an abstractum. It is a purely abstract object. It is  a theorist’s fiction. It is not one of the real things in the universe in addition to the atoms. But it is a fiction that has a neatly defined, well delineated and well behaved role within physics

d) What is Sartre’s notion of death?

According to Jean-Paul Sartre, human freedom has no control over death that escapes him/her and can never give meaning to life. The very fact I am condemned to die makes my life absurd. If it is possible for me to find meaning in life, it is not because I am being-unto-death, but because I can exercise freedom when I exist. Thus Sartre considers death as a reality outside existence. With a little imagination, I can represent my corpse while I exist, but once I am dead, it is others who know my death, make funeral rites and cherish me in their memory. It is then absurd to say my death is my own.

f) What do you understand by a “dyadic” relationship?

According to Marcel, religious  experiences  of  Prayer,  faith,  contemplation   etc.,  becomes  a  dialogical  relationship  with  the  Thou,  a  mode  of   participation between the finite thou and the Absolute.  This  dialogical,  responsive  and  mutual  or  reciprocal  relationship  of   the  I  and  the  Thou  Marcel  described  as  a  ”dyadic"  relationship.  It  is  a  dyadic relation because it involves participation, presence and availability.

This dialogical, responsive and  mutual or reciprocal relationship of the I and the Thou Marcel described as a “dyadic” relationship. It is a dyadic relation because it involves participation, presence and availability. Basically the I-Thou relationship is “dyadic” because it contains some measure of "exclusiveness". It is exclusive of a third party beside the I and the thou, who may either try to verify or describe our experience of the communion. As Cain would say: "Three is, a crowd here, as in any I - Thou relationships. Rather, I -thou relations is personal, a relation between me and the thou and as such defies any verification from outside as is   characteristic of all ontological participations. 

5. a) Thrownness

Heidegger proclaimed that we are ‘thrown’ into the world and that our Being-in-the-world is a ‘thrownness’ [Geworfenheit]. To Heidegger this concept is a primordial banality which had long been overlooked by metaphysical conjecture. Humans beings are thrown with neither prior knowledge nor individual option into a world that was there before and will remain there after they are gone.

b) Appetite

Though in common parlance, this word is used exclusively with reference to our craving for food, it seems worthwhile to extend this term in a general sense to every human (hence, more or less conscious) process whereby we strive towards some good or pleasure or, conversely, seek to avoid some evil or pain. In this sense, “appetite” is more or less a synonym for “tendency”, “drive”, “striving” or even “dynamism”. For further precision, let us point out that “inclination” implies relatively weak tendency. If we’re speaking of a stronger and more powerful striving, it would be better to say “drive”.

e) Total reflection

It is an undeniable fact of experience that two of our activities are capable of a total reflection – that is, they can “turn back” (Latin, re-flectere) on themselves. These two activities are knowing and willing. When I know, I know that I know and it is also possible for me to will to will.

g) Rebirth

A belief in rebirth or reincarnation has been shown to be part of the institutionalised eschatology of tribal people in different parts of the world. Even today, traces of such views are found as far apart as among the Igbo tribe of South East Nigeria and the natives of the Trobriand (or Kiwira) Islands, of the coast of New Guinea just off the North-Western tip of Australia. It is certain that rebirth theories flourished among the tribal, non-Brahmanic religious in the Gangetic region of ancient India, in pre-Aryan times.

h) Resuscitation

The word “resuscitation” is currently used in medical circles to refer to the revival of a patient who had previously been pronounced clinically dead. Many modern hospitals have more or less sophisticated equipment to assist the more traditional “resuscitation techniques” such as artificial respiration, mouth-to-mouth breathing and the like. A person who has been “resuscitated” is one who has been, as it were, returned to this level of ordinary human existence where one is still subject to pain, discomfort, disease … and finally death.