Man as Human Person

THE HUMAN PERSON
by Vitaliano Gorospe S.J.

What It means To Become A Human Person

We Filipinos in general would want to give a convenient excuse for our human frailty, our human weakness and failings. We say: “after all we are only human” (sapagkat kami ay tao lamang). However, we know deep down that this is rationalization. The main thing in life is not to be afraid to be human. But here, becoming human has a different meaning altogether; it means becoming authentically human. What does it mean to become fully human, to become an authentic human person?

THE POSSIBILITIES OF BECOMING FULLY HUMAN. First, Dasein (Heidegger’s term for man or the human existent) is never complete in its being. Man is always a “becoming”. According to Heidegger, the nature of man is time. “I” (ako) am my past, present, and future. One cannot really know the identity of a person unless he knows his past life, his present status and his future possibilities. Man is in the process of transcending his past and present life for his future possibility. Hence the moral life is not something given, complete and finished; it is not an accomplished fact but an on-going task to be achieved in one’s lifetime. This task is the same and open to all. Yet, secondly, Dasein is characterized in every individual case by unique “mineness” (pagsasarili). It is always a question of this unique person’s existence, a question of the “I” (ako) which I cal myself. “I’ve gotta be me” – I must strive to be myself and not somebody else. Many teen-age girls would like to be Nora Aunor. It would be much easier to be themselves. Perhaps one can pretend to be somebody else for a while but not for long. To become an authentic human person, to become moral is become “me”. I am a unique person different from everybody else. I can only become fully a human person in my own unique way (Sinatra’s “I did it my way”). Hence, the moral life is something very unique and personal. Thirdly, to be fully human is to become authentic, to achieve one’s true self (tunay na ako) (Heidegger I). To be authentic, in turn, is to respond to the call of Being as a responsible self (Heidegger II). Man realizes his own true self by responding fittingly to the whole of reality. Existentialist ethic stresses the individual vs. the crowd (doing what everybody else is doing). To be an individual, to choose and lead one’s own life, to realize one’s true identity – this existentialist emphasis balances the Filipino stress on fate or the “bahala na” mentality and patter of behavior. The authentic individual does not wait for events to decide his fate; he makes his destiny a task and a responsibility. Hindi bahala na kundi ako and bahala – ought to be the right ethical mentality.

AUTHENTICITY IN A PHILIPPINE SETTING. To become an authentic person in a Philippine setting is difficult because “social acceptance” is more highly valued in Philippine society than “being authentic”. Filipino values life “pakikisama” (smooth interpersonal relations), euphemism, the use of the go-between “hiya” (shame) or, “amor propio” (self-esteem) – are ambivalent; they can help or hinder authenticity. Yet “social acceptance” can have either a deferential (respect) or manipulative function. It need not necessarily hinder authenticity. Part of youth’s rebellion today is directed against a “phoney” or hypocritical society. Examples of lack of authenticity in Philippine society are the “double-standard morality”, “split-level Christianity”, the “querida” and the “lagay” systems. The young criticize many Philippine mores and customs as more “conventional” than “convictional”. Students recognize phoneyness even among their own peer group or barkada and call it, e.g., “porma lang yan” (that’s form only), OA (overacting). The authentic individual must take hold of the direction of his life. When the individual is solely determined by the eternal factors, e.g. external respectability (“What will the neighbors say?”), fate [“ganyan lang ang buhay” (life’s like that)], bad or good luck (“malas” or “swerte”; “I can’t do anything about it”), when he is dominated by the collective crowd. (“everbody else is doing it”) and is absorbed by the anonymous “they” (sila) – he becomes inauthentic or a phoney.

OTHERS MAKES US BECOME FULLY HUMAN. The existentialist insight that man is a “being-in-the-world-with-others” stresses the social dimension of becoming fully human. By “being-in” Heidegger does not mean physical but personal existence. I can be sitting next to a passenger in a bus without “ being present” to him. Human and personal presence is not just spatial, e.g. “there is water in the glass”, but rather “being present”, being at home” because we are bound by ties of affection, interest, work, etc.. e.g. “He is in love”; “he was in a conspiracy”.

By “the world”, Heidegger does not mean merely the physical world of things but the world of persons and of human meaning. We all perceive the Cordillera mountains as “something lying around” (“present-at-hand”), but we can become “aware” that the Cordilleras can have different meanings for different people such as “a recreation are or a tourist spot”, “an NPA hiding place or a look-out post for the AFP”, “a hazard to a pilot in a stormy weather” or a “copper-quarry or lumber concession” (ready-at-hand). The world is not the “world-in-itself-for-nobody” but the world-as-it-is-for-me”. The Philippines is very different to a Filipino than it is to a tourist or a foreigner. The world that has meaning for me is the world of my choosing. In a way each one of us creates “his own world”, e.g. “business world”, “sports world”, “the world of sex”, the “Ateneo world” (cf. Saint Antoine Exupery’s The Little Prince).

That man is a “being-with-others” has important implications for becoming fully human, for morality. I have no existence apart from others. It is others who give me my identity. And shape the meaning of my life. Kung wala ikaw; wala din ako (Without You, there is no I). Each one of us is created, shaped and re-shaped by those who loves us. “Being-with-others” excludes “using” others as things (merely functional relationship). The norm of morality is determined by the meaning of man as a “self-with-others”. Man as a “being-in-the-world” is responsible for humanizing the world.

HISTORICITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON. According to Heidegger, the essence of man is time. I am my past, present and future. Temporality with its dimensions of past, present and future is the most basic characteristic of human existence. The threefold structure of the human existence (the human person) are facticity (pas), fallenness (present), and possibility (future). First , all those elements in my human existence which are simply given and not chosen by me constitute my facticity. I did not choose to be born, to be male or female, to be a Filipino, to be poor or rich, to be a Christian or a Muslim, etc.. I find myself already in Philippine society at this time and this place with its limitations and possibilities. Secondly, the condition of finding myself “thrown-into-the-world”, without creating myself or knowing where I came from or where I am going, of being absorbed by the anonymous crowd (sila), of being alienated and scattered, makes up my fallenness. In Christian view, fallenness is the condition of man’s sinfulness and the “sin of the world” (the mystery of evil). Thirdly, the fact that I can transcend my past and present and create my own future which I can decide is my possibility. I am “ahead-of-myself” in the sense that I can project myself forward into my future possibility. I become my own self-project in search of my own authentic self. My possibility is not just any happening but the open future and self-project I have chosen. I just do not let events decide my life but makes things happen to fashion my true self.