NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIAABUJA

PHIL205: PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

National Open University of Nigeria Headquarters

Course Code: PHL205

Course Title: PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Course Developer/Writer: Professor Jim Ijenwa UNAH

Course Editor: Professor Harry Ike ODIMEGWU

ISBN:978-978-058-199-2

1
 Course Guide
Introduction
Welcome to PHL 205: Philosophical Anthropology. PHL 205 is a two-credit unit
course with a minimum duration of one semester. It is an optional course for Philosophy
Major (degree) students in the university. The course is expected to provide instruction
on the basic concepts of philosophical anthropology which has evolved over time to be
called the philosophy of the person; pay particular attention to the study of the history
of anthropology, its limitations and the necessity for the application of philosophy to the
study of anthropology; its transformation into the philosophy of the person; the
development of the concept of the person from the three philosophical traditions—
African , Eastern and Western; the various theories of the human person; the crises of the
person, and the causes, aspects and manifestations of the crises of the person; as well as
an exposition of a fundamental ontology of the person, and establish the goal of a
fundamental philosophy of the person. The aim is to equip the students with the skill to
identify, explain and express the basic concepts and a broad understanding of the
philosophy of the person.

Course Objectives
By the end of the course you will be able to:
 Identify the basic concepts of anthropology.
 Acquire knowledge of the history of anthropology.
 Explain the limitations of anthropology and why philosophy is injected into its
study.
 Discuss the transformation of anthropology into the philosophy of the human
person.
 Clarify the concept of the philosophy of the person.
 Know the African philosophical view of the human person.
 Know the Eastern philosophical view of the human person.
 Know the western philosophical view of the human person.
 Discuss the various theories of the human person.
 Identify the causes of the crises of the human person.
 Identify the aspects of the crises of the human person.
 Explain the manifestations of the crises of the human person.
 Articulate a more fundamental ontology of the human person.
 Demonstrate that a fundamental philosophy of the person fosters a better
understanding of humanity.

Working through the Course

To complete this course of study successfully, please read the study units, listen to the
audios and videos, do all the assignments, open the links and read, participate in
discussion forums, read the recommended books and other materials provided, prepare
your portfolios, and participate in the online facilitation.

2
Each study unit has introduction, intended learning outcomes, the main content,
conclusion, summary and references/further readings. The introduction will tell you the
expectations in the study unit. Read and note the intended learning outcomes (ILOs). The
intended learning outcomes tell you what you should be able to do at the completion of
each study unit. So, you can evaluate your learning at the end of each unit to ensure you
have achieved the intended learning outcomes. To meet the intended learning outcomes,
knowledge is presented in texts, videos and links arranged into modules and units. Click
on the links as may be directed, but where you are reading the text offline, you will have
to copy and paste the link address into a browser. You can download the audios and
videos to view offline. You can also print or download the text and save in your computer
or external drive. The conclusion gives you the theme of the knowledge you are taking
away from the unit. Unit summaries are presented in downloadable audios and videos.

There are two main forms of assessment—the formative and the summative. The
formative assessment will help you monitor your learning. This is presented as in-text
questions, discussion forums and self-Assessment Exercises. The summative assessments
would be used by the university to evaluate your academic performance. This will be
given as Computer Based Test (CBT) which serves as continuous assessment and final
examinations. A minimum of two or a maximum of three computer-based tests will be
given with only one final examination at the end of the semester. You are required to take
all the computer-based tests and the final examination.

Study Units
There are 13 study units in this course divided into three modules. The modules and units
are presented as follows:-

Module 1
Unit 1: Basic Concepts and Issues of Philosophical Anthropology
Unit 2: History of the emergence of Philosophical Anthropology
Unit 3: The Concept of the Philosophy of the Person
Unit 4: Theories of the Person: African and Eastern
Unit 5: Theories of the Person: Western

Module 2
Unit 1: Crises of the Human Person and Causes
Unit 2: Dimensions or Aspects of the Crises of the Person
Unit 3: Manifestations of the Crises of the Person
Unit 4: A Fundamental Ontology of the Human Person
Unit 5: The Goal of a Fundamental Philosophy of the Person

Module 3
Unit1: Plato‘s Philosophical Anthropology
Unit 2: Jean-Paul Sartre‘s Philosophical Anthropology

3
Unit 3: Karl Marx‘s Philosophical Anthropology

Presentation Schedule
This course has two presentations. There is one at the middle of the semester and the
other towards the end of the semester. Before presentations, the facilitator would have
taken the time to establish the rudimental of the course to the familiarity of the students.
At the beginning of the semester, each student undertaking this course will be assigned a
topic by the course facilitator, which will be made available in due time, for individual
presentations during forum discussions. Each presenter has 15 minutes (10 minutes for
presentation and 5 minutes for Question and Answer). On the other hand, students will be
divided by the course facilitator into different groups. Each group is expected to come up
with a topic to work on and to submit same topic to the facilitator via the recommended
medium. All of these add up to the reinforcement of class participation and attendance.

Assessment
There are two segments on assessment for this course. These are: Tutor-Marked
Assignments (TMAs) and a written examination. You are expected to submit your
assignments to your tutor as at when due for 30% of your total course mark. Afterward, a
final three-hour examination accounts for 70% of your total course work. Together, all
of these amount to 100%.

To avoid plagiarism, students should use the followings links to test run their presentation
papers before submission to their tutors:
● http://plagiarism.org
● http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/plagiarism/index.html

Similarity index for submitted works by student must NOT EXCEED 35%.

How to Get the Most Out of this Course

For students to get the most out of this course, s/he must:
● Have 75% of attendance through active participations in both forum discussions and
facilitation;
● Read each topic in the course materials before it is being treated in the class;
● Submit every assignment as at when due; as failure to do so will attract a penalty;
● Discuss and share ideas among his/her peers; this will help in understanding the
course more;
● Download videos, podcasts and summary of group discussions for personal
consumption;
● Attempt each self-assessment exercises in the main course material;
● Take the final exam; and
● Approach the course facilitator when having any challenge with the course.

4
Facilitation
You will receive online facilitation. The facilitation is learner-centered. The mode of
facilitation shall be asynchronous and synchronous. For the asynchronous facilitation,
your facilitator will:
 Present the theme for the week;
 Direct and summarize forum discussions;
 Coordinate activities in the platform;
 Score and grade activities when need be;
 Upload scores into the university recommended platform;
 Support you to learn. In this regard personal mails may be sent;
 Send you videos and audio lectures: and podcast.

For the synchronous

There will be a minimum of eight hours and a maximum of twelve online real time
contacts in the course. This will be through video conferencing in the Learning
Management System. The sessions are going to be run at an hour per session. At the
end of each one-hour video conferencing, the video will be uploaded for view at your
pace.

The facilitator will concentrate on main themes that must be known in the course. The
facilitator is to present the online real time video facilitation time table at the beginning of
the course.

The facilitator will take you through the course guide in the first lecture at the start
date of facilitation. Do not hesitate to contact your facilitator. Contact your facilitator if
you:

 Do not understand any part of the study units or the assignment

 Have difficulty with the self-assessment exercises
 Have a question or problem with an assignment or your tutor‗s comments on an
assignment.
 Also, use the contact provide for technical support.

Read assignments, participate in the forums and discussions. This gives you opportunity
to socialize with others in the programme. You can raise any problem encountered during
your study. To gain the maximum benefit from course facilitation, prepare a list of
questions before the discussion session. You will learn a lot from participating actively in
the discussions. Finally, respond to the questionnaire. This will help the university to
know your areas of challenges and how to improve on them for a review of the course
materials and lectures.

References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Adeofe, L. (2004). Personal Identity in African Metaphysics. In Brown Lee M (ed).

5
 African Philosophy: New Traditional Perspectives, pp. 69-83. London: Oxford
University Press

Appiah, A. (2004). Akan and Euro-American Concepts of the Person. In Brown Lee
M (ed). African Philosophy: New Traditional Perspectives, pp. 21-34. London:
Oxford University Press.

Craemer, W. De. (1983). A Cross-cultural Perspective on Personhood. Milbank

Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society, Vol. 61, No. 1, 1983.
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Heine, Steven J. and Buchtel, Emma E. (2009). Personality: The Universal and the
Culturally Specific. Annual Reviews of Psychology. Downloaded from
arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of British Columbia Library on
12/16/08. For personal use only.

Elvin, M. (1985). Between the Earth and Heaven: Conceptions of the Self in China. In
Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins and Steven Lukes (eds). The Category of the
Person, pp. 156-188). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fang, T.H. (1969). The World and the Individual in Chinese Metaphysics. In Charles A
Moore (ed). The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture.
USA: East-West Centre Press University of Hawahi.

Gbadegesin, S, (1998). Eniyan: The Yoruba Concept of the Person. In P.H. Coetzee and
A.P.J. Roux (eds). The African Philosophy Reader. London: Routledge.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Trans by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.

Hunter, D.E. and Whitten, P. (1976). The Study of Anthropology. New York: Harper and
Row.

Igbafen, M.L. (2014). The Concept of Person in African and Chinese Philosophies: A
Comparative Inquiry. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology.
September 2014, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.121-149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/ijpt.v2n3a10

Ikuenobe, P. (2006). The Idea of Personhood in Chinua Achebe‘s Things Fall Apart. In
Philosophia Africana. August at BNET. mht.

Kaphagawani, D. (2004). African Conceptions of a Person: A Critical Survey. In Kwasi

Wiredu (ed). A Companion to African Philosophy, pp.332-341. USA: Blackwell

6
 Publishing Ltd.

Kimmerle, H. (2008). The Concept of a Person in African Thought: A dialogue between

African and Western Philosophies. In Helmut Wautischer (ed). Ontology of
Consciousness Percipient Action, pp.507-524. London: A Bradford Book The
MIT Press.

Menkiti, I.A. (2006). On the Normative Concept of a Person. In Kwasi Wiredu (ed). A
Companion to African Philosophy, pp.324-331. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Oke, E.A. (1984). An Introduction to Social Anthropology. London: Macmillan

Publishers. Omoregbe, J.I. (1998). African Philosophy: Yesterday and Today. In
E.C.Eze (ed). African Philosophy: An Anthology, pp.3-8. USA: Blackwell
Publishers.

Omorebge, J.I. (2004). Comparative Philosophy: East- West A Comparative Analysis of

Asian and Western Philosophy, Lagos: Joja Press Limited.

Oyeshile, O. (2006). The Individual-Community Relationship as an Issue in Social and

Political Philosophy. In Olusegun Oladipo (ed). Core Issues in African
Philosophy, pp.102-119. Ibadan: Hope Publications.

Pappe, H.O. (1967). Philosophical Anthropology. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Logic to Psychology, Paul Edwards (ed). London; New York: Macmillan.

Unah, Jim I. (2002 reprinted 2006). Philosophy, Society and Anthropology. Lagos: Fadec
Publishers.Unah, Jim I. (2016). On Being: Discourse on the Ontology of Human
Being. Lagos: Foresight Press.

In addition to the afore-stated work, the following online sites can also assist students to
acquire additional publications:
● www.pdfdrive.net
● www.bookboon.com
● www.sparknotes.com
● http://ebookee.org
● https://scholar.google.com
● https://books.google.com

7
MODULE ONE [1]

Unit 1: Basic Concepts and Issues of Philosophical Anthropology

Unit 2: History of the emergence of Philosophical Anthropology
Unit 3: The Concept of the Philosophy of the Person
Unit 4: Theories of the Person: African and Eastern
Unit 5: Theories of the Person: Western

8
UNIT 1: Basic Concepts and Issues of Philosophical Anthropology Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Definition of Anthropology
1.3.2 The Meaning of Philosophical Anthropology
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
Here, we are saddled with the responsibility of making the students understand the
general meaning of anthropology, its historical account, how it has over time
metamorphosed into what is today known as philosophical anthropology and the
distinction between the former and the latter. Also of interest to us here is to
highlight the limitations of anthropology which make the philosophy of the human
person the right choice of study. To enrich this discourse, we further seek to
explore how the person is understood in among three civilizations; African,
Eastern and Western.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

At the end of this unit you should be able to:
 Identify the basic concepts of anthropology.
 Acquire knowledge of the meaning and history of anthropology.
 Know the meaning of philosophical anthropology

1.3.1 Definition of Anthropology

What is anthropology? How can we grasp its core meaning? Anthropology is
generally defined as the study of man. This definition comes from two Greek
terms combined to produce the concept. The two Greek terms are
―anthropos‖ and ―logos.‖ From this, it appears that anthropology is assigned the
task to specifically address the question, ―what is man?‖ What this question
requires us to do is to identify what exactly it is that man is. Is man, for instance,
a bundle of genetic tissues that evolved from an animal into a human being, or a
direct creation of God consisting of spiritual and physical elements or an entity
that understands itself as well as what being or existence means? These are not
easy questions to answer, even though they look simple. The way to begin to seek
meaningful answers is to return to the root terms making up anthropology. The
terms are ―Anthropos‖ and ―logos.‖ Let us return to them.

From the etymological meaning of anthropology, there appears to be a difference

between what it means and the actual activities of anthropologists. The term
anthropology, derives its root from two Greek words namely: anthropos and
logos, which are translated literally in English language as ―man‖ and ―study‖
9
respectively. Also, anthropos, other than meaning man, equally means
―humanity,‖ ―human‖ or ―mankind.‖ In the same vein, logos or logoi (plural)
could also mean; reason, discourse, science, theory (Cf. Unah, 2002:129).

Accordingly, anthropology as we noted above, could be rendered as; the study of

man, the science of man, the theory of man, the reason on man and the discourse
on man (Ibid). Thus, anthropology studies man in his cultural, linguistic and
religious dimensions. But, it does appear that there is a difference between
studying man and his activities and studying man in general. To resolve this
problem, probably, we need to take a closer look at the meaning of anthropos.

Anthropo: Anthropos as we have seen is a Greek term that houses both humans
and man. In other words, it refers to a human being whether male or female. It
describes a human-like creature and distinguishes this particular being from other
kinds of beings such as animals, beasts, angels and God. Examples of these
category of creatures are available at (
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/prehistoric-man). It is for that very reason
that anthropos can mean human or human beings in particular and man in general.
It is because of this two-legged definition of anthropology (as individual human
beings in particular and as man in general) that led the early anthropologists and
explorers into a kind of racial profiling of human beings and their activities rather
than observing the fact of thinking and minding as point of departure in the study
of human creature (Harris, 1968:91) as we shall later see in our discussion. In
fact, it is also said that the term anthropos equally entails such Greek words
like ―ana‖ and ―prosopos‖ with ―ana‖ meaning up and ―prosopos‖ meaning face.
So, from the etymological meaning of anthropos, man means a being which has
its face turned up (http://www.arvindus.com/publications/201203081.html).

Logos: The second part of the etymological construction namely, logos, as we

mentioned earlier can be interpreted or rendered in many ways; such as reason,
study, science, discourse, et cetera. Combined with anthropos, logos could mean
reason on man or loosely speaking, reason on human or human person; it could
mean study of man or study of human person; it could mean science of man or
science of human person; or discourse on man or discourse on human person, et
cetera.

Scope of Anthropology: Consequently, anthropologists found it intriguing to seek

understanding of this kind of being; study its culture and mode of social relation. It
provides a detailed study of local life of this species in comparison to
cosmopolitan life in other human societies. In strict terms, anthropology provides
insight in two ways: first, by producing knowledge about why there are cultural
variations in the world and the purpose or significance of certain practices among
a people. For instance, anthropological studies may deal with, say, the role of caste

10
 and wealth in Indian village life, technology among highland people in New
Guinea, religion in southern Africa, food habits in northern Norway, the political
importance of kinship in the Middle East, or notions about gender in the Amazon
basin (Erickson, 2004:7).

Erickson further listed the key concepts of anthropology to include: [i] Person
[ii] Society [iii] Culture [iv] Translation and comparison [v] Holism and [vi]
Context.

Erickson believes that these are the concepts that define anthropology. He equally
observes that while we discriminate between one concept and the other, we should
be wary of not allowing our chosen and preferred concept to so influence our view
of reality to the extent that we refuse to be receptive to contrary views. Again, the
choice of concept is also a function of interest, training, and this is why it is not
always advisable for a researcher to insist on viewing the totality of reality from a
certain privileged position (Ibid, pp.19-41). We shall throw more light on this
when we discuss the concept of the person in different civilizations.

What have become clear from Erickson‗s submissions regarding the scope of
anthropology is that many different kinds of activities are lumped together as part
and parcel of anthropology. And because of this development, many subject areas
have been poached by anthropologists. It does appear also that anthropologists
have concentrated more attention on the activities involving human beings or man
rather than what man or the human person truly is. For instance, how man gathers
his food, the occupations that he is involved, how he fashions his tools; his belief
systems, his mode of social organization, his relationships and sundry other
activities that have become identified with specific disciplines, are found in the
study of anthropology; implying that anthropology is an amorphous science or
field of study. On account of this, anthropology has failed to furnish a clear
understanding of the human person.

Consequently, it was supposed that if anthropology could not provide a

comprehensive view of man, a discipline with pedigree and substance, such as
philosophy, should inject universal philosophical elements into anthropology to
fortify its transcendental structures and make it a universal science of human
beings. How should anthropology be studied in a philosophical manner?

1.3.2 The Meaning of Philosophical Anthropology

From the forgoing, it means that anthropology needs the assistance of philosophy
to become a universal science of man. Different philosophical traditions proposed
their inputs, which would make anthropology philosophical. Immanuel Kant
proposed reason as the basic characteristic of all humans. According to Kant,
reason is the only property peculiar to all humans; implying that reason should be

11
 the guide to all human actions. But this universal characteristic of reason
suggested by Kant does not exhaust all the universal traits of man that all humans
share. For instance, one other characteristic of man that Kant did not mention is
―work‖. Human life in every civilization is defined by work. It could be said, as
Karl Marx did, that ―work‖ is man‗s life. It is because of this universal trait that
Karl Marx insisted that the worker should not be deprived of the fruit of his labour;
the proceeds from his work. Another philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach, defined man
as an essence seeking being. It is this search for essence that takes man to religion
and the quest for the world beyond. Without going into details, all three
characteristics mentioned by the three philosophers are true characteristics of the
human person. What is not true, however, as each of then tended to suggest, is that
only one of the characteristics can exhaustively define man or human reality. So,
even the effort of philosophical anthropologists to answer the question, ―what is
man?‖ leaves gaps for a more universal science of man to fill. That universal
science is fundamental ontology which shall be discussed in Module two.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Who said work is man‘s life? (a) Kant (b) Marx (c) Erickson (d) Weber

2. How many key concepts of anthropology are listed by Erickson (a) Two (b)
Four (c) Five (d) Six

1.4 Summary
This unit began with the discussion on the meaning of anthropology which we
said is the study of man. The etymological combination of the term, ―Anthropos‖
and ―logos‖ support the meaning ascribed to anthropology. But owing to the fact
of not being precise or clear about what exactly man is, it became necessary for
the clarity seeking parental discipline, philosophy, to offer clarity about the
meaning of man. Effort to provide this clarity led to the definition of man by Kant,
Karl Marx, and Feuerbach as a being endowed with reason, a being whose essence
is work, and a being who seeks essence in other-worldly reality, respectively.
Evidently, even philosophical anthropology provided incomplete definitions of
human reality; though, what they say is universally true about man. Anthropology
as the study of man does not appear to provide a clear picture of what man truly,
universally, is. Anthropology‗s attempts to furnish an understanding of man are
fraught with imprecision and tainted with racism. This makes it [anthropology] a
poor science of man. It became necessary to seek clarity from philosophy. Such
attempt at clarity by philosophers ended up with a fragmented understanding of
man‗s universal characteristics; which demands a more fundamental science of
man.

12
1.5 References/ Further Readings/Web Sources
Erickson, T.H. (2004). What is Anthropology? London: Pluto Press.
Harris, M. (1968). The Rise of Anthropological Theories: A History of Theories of
Culture. Columbia University: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, Inc.
Unah, Jim I. (2002 reprinted 2006). Philosophy, Society and Anthropology. Lagos:
Fadec Publishers.

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. (b); 2. (d)

13
UNIT 2: History of the Emergence Of Philosophical Anthropology
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 The Emergence of Anthropology
1.3.2 Activities of Anthropologists
1.3.3 Chronicle of Conceptions
1.3.4 Man-Centered conception
1.3.5 Divine-Centered Conception
1.3.6 Misconceptions about man
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
It will be erroneous to assume that humankind in their present condition just
appeared like a new author mobile in a showroom, having all the features
perfectly fitted. Different parts of man (homo-sapiens) underwent several
evolutionary processes for there to be the present refined humankind with fine
language, dressing style, sophisticated culture and ways of doing things. But how
then were we able to know the state of existence of the (stone-age) ancient
humankind? The answer lies in the works of anthropologists. According to Unah,
the account of anthropology dates back to the history of western education. In
other words, it is traceable to the time when European history began. This unit
provides us with information on how human beings evolved and developed.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

At the end of this study unit you should be able to:
 Acquire adequate information about the development of human beings
 How the activities of early anthropologists cumulated into what became known
as anthropological study of man.

1.3.1 The Emergence of Anthropology

Notwithstanding its history, anthropology got fully developed as a well- founded
independent academic course of study in the 19th century (Cf. Unah, 2002: 130)).
According to him, at the early stage of anthropological studies, information
about it came from the experiences of explorers, travelers and adventurers through
whose activities the discovery of the existence of different group of human
society were made (Ibid). During the 19th century, there was a need for
specialization amongst anthropologists. These include,
 Physical anthropology, which specialized in the biological processes of homo-
sapiens that separates them from other animals;
 Archeology which focused on physical remains or former conditions of
previous cultures. This category of anthropologists got their findings through
14
 excavating some buried utensils and forms from the ground and examining
them to obtain information about the people who used them and used be there;
 There were also linguistic anthropologists who examined the morphology or
structure of the human language;
 Then, we have cultural anthropologists whose interests dwelt on the nature of
human culture and its patterns that separates the human society from the animal
kingdom;
 There was also another group known as psychological anthropologists that
examined the diverse cultures of humankind, the relationships that existed
between them and how they combine with other social structures in influencing
the human person (See. Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropology). They were also concerned
with the nature of the human society and how human beings came to associate
with one another and the actual reasons behind change in a society.

1.3.2 Activities of Anthropologists

In line with the above classifications, in the ancient days, voyagers and
philosophers observed the cultural and physical differences of the people they
came across. In very many cases, these voyagers gathered their information about
the things they saw from observation. For instance, (Oke, 1984: 3), stated that
these travelers observed that ―…forms of society differed from place to place and
that people‗s body-shape and skin colour varied as well. These observations led to
interest in speculation about human origins and human development‖. In the strict
sense, Anthropology was born between 1860 and 1880; and, it must be stressed,
right from the start it took a radically comparative form. It chose to place in
perspective so as to study not only ancient societies, the medieval European past
and some, at least, of our contemporary mores and customs, but also primitive
civilizations across the world (Lavisse,
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/3929.preface-doing- anthropology-
with-the-greeks)

At this juncture, it is appropriate to introduce other chronicles of conceptions of

the development of anthropology.

1.3.3 Chronicle of Conceptions

Anthropology emerged as a distinct academic discipline, as the debate regarding
how humankind evolved, thickened. In the words of Alan Barnad (2004:15),
―from a ‗history of ideas‘ point of view, the writings of ancient Greek
philosophers and travellers, medieval Arab historians, medieval and Renaissance
European travellers, and later European philosophers, jurists, and scientists of
various kinds, are all plausible precursors.‖ According to historical records,
Xenophanes (570-475 BC), of the ancient Greek civilization usually referred to as
the ―golden era‖ of European thought, was credited to be the ―first thinker to call

15
 anthropological attention to the nature of man when he argued, among other
things, that society is the creation of man; that the gods are human images formed
in the mind, and that religion is a product of society for its own ends and
purposes‖ (Cf. Unah, 2002:130). Thus, Xenophanes was notorious for criticizing
the anthropomorphic conception of God. He was against the accepted belief in one
Supreme Being called God who, according to him, daily interferes in the affairs of
men. Such notion of God, he said, only exists but in people‗s mind, beyond which
there is no God. ―He dismissed the popular understanding of the gods as
superstition. Whereas the rainbow was considered a manifestation of the goddess
Iris, Xenophanes claimed that, "She whom men call `Iris' is in reality a cloud,
purple, red, and green to the sight‖ (Mark, 2009,
https://www.ancient.eu/Xenophanes_of_Colophon/).

Another Greek traveller and philosopher, who sojourned to several parts of the
world, was Herodotus (484-425 BC). He ―described the life-styles of the people
he met; their physical characteristics, language, customs, institutions, laws,
political organizations and military and belief systems‖ (Cf. Oke, p.3). He was a
cultural anthropologist. In describing the cultural practices of a certain people who
lived between Egypt and Libya, he wrote:
They observed most Egyptian customs, but the clothes
they wear are rather those of the rest of the Libyans.
There women wear a bangle on each shin, made of
bronze. They let the hair on their head grow long,
and when a woman catches lice on herself she bites
them in retaliation and then throws them away. These
are the only Libyans who do this, and they are the
only ones who before setting up a household, display
their virgins to the king. When the king finds one of
them please he himself takes her maidenhood
(Redfield, 1985)
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/36
6908?journalCode=cp

1.3.4 Man-Centered Conception

Arguably, Herodotus is reputed to be the first to introduce racial dimension into
the anthropological discourse on man. This is because ―he believed that the
Greek way of life was superior to all others‖ (Cf. Unah, 131)). In spite of this,
― the philosopher in Herodotus enabled him to acknowledge the truth that people
naturally prefer their own culture to that of others and they ―tend to judge others
negatively in terms of their own value system‖ (Ibid). With such ethnocentric
attitude, he found everything odd in the clothes the people he met wore, the food
they ate, their customs and odd ideas, what is good and evil, using his own Greek
civilization as the measuring standard.

16
Unah further observed that Plato and his master Socrates and Protagoras of
Abedera, are other philosophers who drew anthropological perspectives of man in
their works in the classical period. In other words, these philosophies put man at
the centre of their philosophical discussions. Socrates (469-399 BC) believes that
knowledge is virtue and the center or seat of knowledge is man. Man needs to
know himself to be able to stand at a vantage position; while describing the
network of relationships, the cultures which he develops and his place in the
scheme of things. Thus, Socrates came up with the dictum ―Man, know
theyself‖; for ―an unexamined life is not worth living.‖ Knowledge, he believed,
brings virtue and virtue produces happiness to the one who has it. If there is any
knowledge worth gathering about the world, it is that of the self. It is through
virtue that healthy and harmonious interaction in the society is made possible. A
wise man for him is one who seeks to know. In other words, a wise person is
one who knows that he does not know, and thus seeks to know; whereas, a foolish
person is one who does not know that he does not know. Therefore, he asserted
that knowledge is virtue and it is the right social conduct and the right knowledge
is that which begins with the self.

Unfortunately, Socrates was persecuted and executed by the Athenian authorities

because they perceived his teachings were beginning to hit the right cord among
the people, especially the youth. Thus, they accused him of radicalizing and
corrupting the minds of the youth. He however died in 399BC but his student
Plato (429-347 BC), carried on the mantle. According to Unah, Plato later
introduced another anthropological dimension on the nature of man in relation to
society. The concept of justice, Plato argues, is one of the products of man‗s self-
knowledge of himself and the good. The knowledge of the self and the good, leads
to Justice; and justice when properly articulated and elaborated proves to be the
cord which ties and binds the fabrics of the society (Ibid).

The point of interest here is that it is within the society that man can live and have
his being. A society devoid of justice, in the view of Plato, is a wayward society.
Accordingly, he classified man into three parts: the rational, the spirited and the
appetitive parts, constituting the human being. This classification corresponds with
his further classification of the society into the guardian, the soldiers and the
artisans. He maintained that, for justice to reign in the society, each of these
classifications, whether at the human level or the level of society, must carry out its
duty according to its assigned role. This is the way that the human society can
experience harmony and efficiency. Thus, one can argue that the first principle of
division of labour was initiated by Plato.

Again, Unah opines that the Greek efforts at prioritizing justice yielded a human
ethics that put man at the centre in the scheme of affairs with the objective of
aiding man to live a well-ordered life directed by reason. Put differently, it is

17
 human reason that should guide and determine the right course of social
behaviour. According to him, the right conduct in the view of the Greeks, was not
one prescribed by God, but one thought out by man himself as best suited for the
attainment of social harmony and tranquility (Ibid, p.133).

1.3.5 Divine-Centered Conception

In course of time, there emerged new anthropological perspectives on man; which
conceptualized man and the universe as the handiwork of an all-powerful and
benevolent God whose ways are unfathomable and who is both the author of
morality and the determinant of the right social conduct. That is to say that, after
the days of the Greeks when the discourse about the universe was man-centered or
anthropocentric, other group of thinkers who sought to interpret all human
experiences in terms of divine will and divine orchestration emerged. This was a
Christian group of thinkers and prominent among them was Augustine of Hippo
(354-430 AD). Accordingly,
Anthropology for Augustine was based on the truth
that humanity was created in the image of God.
Augustine affirms that the world was created by God
out of nothing, through a free act of God. He then
affirms the absolute unity and the spiritual nature of
the human soul. He affirms that the soul is simple and
immortal. The soul has three functions: being,
understanding, and loving, corresponding to three
faculties: intellective memory, intelligence, and will.
(Culled from: http://www.augnet.org/en/works-of-
augustine/his-ideas/2302- anthropology/)

In Augustine‗s view, to seek knowledge about man is to seek knowledge about

God. It is only what God says about man that is the valid knowledge about who
man is, and this can only be found through the bible. This divine centered view of
man was later improved upon by medieval scholars such as St. Thomas Aquinas
(1225-74). He said that man is created by God and has a composite nature, that is,
both material and substantial forms. Consequently, just like Augustine, he
admitted the created nature of man but however conceded that man‗s substantial
nature is the rational soul. He acknowledged the fact that man‗s rational nature
endows him with the immense potentials to acquire and apply knowledge and his
other instincts such as the lust for power and uninhibited sexual drives put him
almost at par with the lower animals. Thus, anthropology today, studies such dual
nature of man, that is, the rational and creative, and the uninhibited animalistic
tendencies, which affirms the probable affinity between humans and the lower
animals (Cf. Unah, p.133).

The point to drive home here, from the brief account of the history of

18
 anthropology, includes the fact that the history of man can only make sense within
the context of the human society. In other words, since man is a being
discoverable only in the social context, it will appear that the reasonable account
of him must be one which has its root within the human society. Thus, it seems
more appealing having to get information about the origin and history of the
human society and the reason for the diversities among humankind from the
activities of explorers who travelled around the world. However, this position does
necessarily disprove the creationist and the God narrative of the origin of man.

1.3.6 Misconceptions about Anthropology

Evidently, some of the reports about the nature of some societies and peoples were
tainted with prejudices and racial coloration.. For instance, it is unimaginable and
hurting to read some accounts ―portraying some of the human beings they met in
their journeys as one-eyed, dog-headed and with tails‖ (Ibid, p.134). Unah further
captures it thus:
These grotesque and distorted accounts given by some
of the explorers and travellers provided the impetus for
the original thrust of anthropology as a discipline
concerned with the study of the ―primitive‖ man,
who represented savagery and barbarism
providing a sharp contrast to the civilized European
man whose destiny was to civilize the brutes (ibid).

Accordingly, such account as characterized by some anthropologist, simply

juxtaposed the European world in opposition to the non-Europeans, with the
former having the full right to enlighten, educate and colonize the latter; which is
perceived as backward and less-rational. The latter is at times, presented as
depraved, corrupt and wicked, while the former wears the look of the ideal human
being. It was this form of thinking by some anthropologists that introduced the
notion of the ― superior‖ and the ―weak race‖ which echoes terribly in many
places today.

To put it bluntly, the history of anthropology, rather than going ahead to highlight
the fundamental characteristics general to all humankind, proceeded along the line
of racial profiling, racism, and imperialism with the intent of subjugating and
colonializing the contact people. Pathetic as it were, ―Primitive man was treated
humorously as the bush man of the earlier stages of mankind requiring a
European assistance in the form of a missionary, civilizing, activity‖ (Ibid, p.135).

With anthropology having assumed this unfortunate dimension, European powers

dispatched more anthropologists to the new world in form of missionaries and
colonial administrators. All of these were perpetrated under the cover that the
weak natives badly needed protection and assistance to move from barbaric and

19
 primitive stages to civilized human beings. This framework led to the
balkanization of the territory of the weak continents with each of the intruders
laying claim to ownership. It also marked the beginning of the exploration and
exploitation of the natural resources of those conquered territories. Thus, the
anthropological fieldwork outside the European soil was a tragic exercise for the
conquered peoples.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. With anthropology having assumed this unfortunate dimension, ______
powers dispatched more anthropologists to the new world in form of
missionaries and colonial administrators.

2. A society devoid of justice, in the view of Plato, is a wayward society (a)

Socrates (b) Plato (c) Aristotle (d) Protagoras

1.4 Summary
Notwithstanding the above mentioned unhappy circumstances surrounding the
work of anthropologists in the non-European societies, credit should be given to
the outcome of their fieldwork; because it was through their findings that
outstanding results about the study of languages, economic activities, social
customs such as marriages and kingship ties, as well as biology and the study of
diseases and illnesses, such as malaria, cholera, et cetera, improved the human
condition. These beneficial consequences raised questions as to how to review
anthropology to improve the curriculum to enrich it and expunge its racial and
offensive contents.

Anthropology emerged and developed from the activities of early explorers,

missionaries, and travellers, especially in the 19th Century. The observations and
accounts given by these anthropologists revealed that human societies are diverse,
and each is unique on its own way, and does need the other to validate its
relevance and existence. Unfortunately, the anthropologists injected prejudices and
racial profiling in the reports which they gave of the different people they met in
their journeys and adventures; requiring that we interrogate and evolve a more
fundamental and people- friendly method of studying the diverse societies of
humankind and securing a more accurate picture and understanding of human
nature and human reality.

1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Barnad, A. (2004). History and Theory in Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lavisse, E. (ND). ―Preface: Doing Anthropology with the Greeks.‖ Center for
Hellenic Studies, Harvard University.
20
 https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/3929.preface- doing-
anthropology-with-the-greeks
Mark, J. (2009). ―Xenophane of Golophon.‖ Ancient History:
Encyclopedia. https://www.ancient.eu/Xenophanes_of_Colophon/
Oke, E. A. (1984). An Introduction to Social Anthropology. London: Macmillan
Publishers.
Redfield, J. (1985). ―Herodotus the Tourist‖, Classical Philosophy: A Journal
Devoted to Research In Classical Antiquity Vol. 80,No.21. University of
Chicargohttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/366908?journ
alCode=cp
Unah, J.I. (2002). Anthropology and Philosophical Anthropology. In
Philosophy, Society and Anthropology, Jim I. Unah (ed), Lagos: Fadec
Publishers

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. Europeans; 2. (b)

21
UNIT 3: The Concept of the Philosophy of the Person
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 The Nature of the Human Person
1.3.2 Descriptive Concept of the Human Person
1.3.3 Normative Concept of the Human Person
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
What is the nature of the human person? How can we know about it? These are the
two fundamental question that the present unit wishes to investigate.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

In this unit, learners should be able to:
 Understand the idea of the human person
 Be able to discuss some crucial theories or views of the human person

1.3.1 The Nature of the Human Person

The human person can be said to be a complex being that can do many things.
Different from other forms of being, the human person can move his or her body,
he or she can run, jump and even dance. These are bodily activities of the human
person. Thus, we can say that the human person has a body, in which many other
activities and processes take place. For instance, the beating of the heart, the
complex functioning of the brain and the functioning of the kidney, et cetera, are
bodily functions. All these processes are important for sustaining the human
person‗s life and for healthy living as well. In the same vein, there are many other
things which the person can do but cannot be classified as bodily activities. In
other words, if bodily activity alone is what defines a Person; this will be an
incomplete definition because there are many other beings which can move
themselves in the same manner. They are developed in the psychomotor domain of
education. However, in addition to the bodily activities, a person can think about
things, reflect over a course of action, desire something, feel and dream about
many different things. These of course seem to be mental and affective activities
and are quite different from the earlier described bodily activities and processes.
They seem to involve a mind which has mental states; and are quite different from
bodily states. This is the reason that when we want to capture a person‗s mental
state with words; we say he is happy, sad, in love, nervous, bold, et cetera.
Therefore, a universal definition of person will include, not just a complex body,
but also an entity endowed with physical, mental and emotional states. More light
shall be shed on this in Unit 5 when we shall be looking at the Western conception

22
 of the person.

Despite the fact that the notion of the person is universal, every society has at
least, one collection of ideas that can be called their philosophy or theory of the
person, which is why we often talk of African, Eastern or European personality.
The philosophy of a person is an aggregate of views about what constitute human
beings, what make human beings work, what they need for survival. All these are
considered when talking about the human person. The notion of the human
person is intricately linked with culture. It is for this reason that ―cultural
psychologists seek to understand people as they are embedded within their
cultures‖ (Heine and Buchtel, 2009:370). Also, a philosophy of a person is not
something that the people in the society will necessarily think of as separate from
their views about many other things. In other words, it is intertwined with a couple
of other things constituting their worldview. This is because people interact not
only with each other but also with the world at large. In the African worldview, for
instance, this web of interaction goes beyond the living human beings to include
the living-dead, the ancestors and the deities. A people‗s concept of a person
gives a more or less comprehensive, epistemological and metaphysical account
(Cf. Ndubuisi, 2004:422) of how a person works internally and externally in
relation to his biological, social, religious, and moral attitudes towards existential
challenges. Accordingly, Onah (2002: 70), identifies, two approaches in the study
of personality; descriptive and normative approaches.

1.3.2 Descriptive Concept of the Human Person

The descriptive concept of a person has to do with the analysis of constituent parts
of the human person; both physical and non-physical and their functions or
significance in the scheme of things. This could sometimes take the form of
examining human personality‗s subjective experience, free will and liability to
moral laws. It seeks to know ―what defines the human species in the abstract,
what distinguishes humans from animals, and what is the natural condition of
humankind‖ (Barnard, 2004:18). It tells whether all that constitute the human
person is the physical body and its features or if there is a non-physical, mental or
spiritual element in the human person and the physiological needs for survival.
Igwe lends more credence to this in his discussion of what he calls classical
definition of the human person. Citing Omoregbe, he writes:
Classical definition as provided by Bioethics sees a person as
an individual substance of rational nature, meaning that
rationality is the distinguishing mark of a human person.
More so, Aristotle asserts that the human being has a rational
principle; within the nutritive life, he shares this rationality
with plants, and within the instinctual life, he shares with
other beings. This, he says, is the ability to rationally execute
or formulate actions (Cf. Igwe, 2018: 39).

23
 However, while not rejecting such a definition of the human person completely,
Igwe objects that it is blank and open-ended. ―Open-ended because it can as well
be applied to both the wise and the foolish, and as such, it does not in any way
follow necessarily the making of rational choices, as opposed to the ability to
make them‖ (Ibid). Notwithstanding this objection, he agrees that rationality
remains the prerogative property of human agents and it is that factor that
differentiates the insane person or morally depraved person from the human
person.

1.3.3 The Normative Concept of the Human Person

The normative approach has to do with the social status of a responsible member
of a society. It evolves from the way in which man is understood in a given
community in terms of his relations to other living beings and his role among other
human beings (Sogolo 1993:190-91). According to Onah (2002), it is not
something one is born with. In other words, it not natural to a person‗s character
the way we can speak of rationality or other human existential traits. Normative
personhood has to do with how a person acquires and internalizes social values. In
this perspective, a person cannot only be said to be a human being but also
one who has shown commitment to, and has attained the status of a responsible
member of the society. In an African traditional thought, according to Ndubuisi, a
normal human being has three levels of existence: as an individual, as a member
of a group, and as a member of a community. All of these constantly interact and
inter-penetrate one another in a harmonious relation (Ndubuisi, 2004: 425).

Only in terms of other people does the individual become conscious of his own
being, his own duties, his privileges and responsibilities towards himself and
towards other people. When he suffers, he does not suffer alone but with the
corporate group; when he rejoices, he rejoices not alone but with his kinsmen, his
neighbours and relatives whether dead or alive… The individual can only say: ―I
am, because we are; and since we are, therefore I am‖. This is the cardinal point in
the understanding of the African view of human being (Mbiti, 1969: 108-09).

From this definition, it is clear that from the normative point of view, a social
deviant or one who makes evil deeds a habit cannot be regarded as a human
person. A human person is one whose action and inaction are dictated by
consideration for the plight of other human persons. That is why Igwe (2018),
while differentiating between the human person and the human being, writes:
All human persons fall under the category of being a
human being, but not all human beings fall in the
domain of the human person. In other words, every
human person possesses the qualities of being human
(human being), but not every human being has the
qualities of a human person (Igwe, 2018:40).

24
 Highlighting the views of Omoregbe on the attributes of human personality, Igwe,
again, writes that for a person to be said to be human, such an individual must ―be
a rational being, a free being, a moral being, a social being, a being that is capable
of interpersonal relationship, and an individual being‖ (Ibid). Furthermore, Igwe
adds that apart from the above listed characteristics of the human person, there is
also a need to include self-evaluation as a key attribute of the human person. He
argues that one can be rational, free, moral, social and individualistic, yet not
being self-evaluating. For one to be a human person, he contends, that person
should be self-evaluating. ―A reflective being is that which, apart from possessing
rationality, continuously reflects and, is conscious of this very property‖ (Ibid).

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. A _______ is one whose action and inaction are dictated by consideration for
the plight of other human persons

2. The ______ concept of a person has to do with the analysis of constituent

parts of the human person; both physical and non-physical and their functions
or significance in the scheme of things (a) Normative (b) Platonic (c)
Descriptive (d) Speculative

1.4 Summary
From the foregoing, a whole complex of things is considered in the discourse on
the human person. There are physical, non-phsysical, psychological,
biological, and cultural, and a host other factors at play when deciding what
constitutes a human person. Oftentimes, some anthropologists and social
philosophers confuse the descriptive with the normative conception of the human
person, and vice versa; a confusion that usually results in racism, racialism and
ethnic hatred. From the universal view of the human person, the concept of the
person seems verifiable and undiscriminating. From this perspective, the
question of personal identity is validated by two factors namely, rationality and
social inclination. In other words, the human person is one with a higher reasoning
faculty which it uses to organize the self, the society and the whole living
environment. Among all the living beings in the world, it is only the human
person that is endowed with these properties; which is why the human person is
regarded, in some quarters, as the most evolved of all sentient beings. Similarly,
even within framework of the normative conception of personhood, there are
varying opinions as to what make up the human person as distinct from the human
being. This to say that apart from the fact of reason and social conditioning, there
are other sentiments shared in some cultures in respect to who the human person
ought to be. Be it as it may, ―it is not wrong to say that man, Eastern or
Western, is man. However, the ‗right concept‗ is very important to focus on
man‗s real existence and man's everyday practice‖ (Lei, 2010:156). It is in the light

25
 of this that we shall now proceed to discuss the concept of the Person in both
African and Eastern cultures. The main point of our discussion about the
philosophy of the human person can be summarized as follows: the first is that the
question of what constitutes the human person is culturally sensitive. In other
words, each human society appears to have a different opinion of what a human
person is. The second point we made is that there are two approaches to the
study of the philosophy of the human person; the first is descriptive and the second
is normative. While the descriptive interpretation of the human person takes its
root from the fact of nature, the normative approach is a function of nurture and
social circumstance. However, the normative interpretation derives its fiber from
the descriptive. In other words, there has to be a being called human before he or
she can qualify to become a person.

1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Barnard, A. (2004). History and Theory in Anthropology, Cambridge:
Cambridge UniversityPress.
Heine,S.J. and Buchtel, E.E. (2009). ―Personality: The Universal and the
Cultural Specific.‖ in The Annual Reviews of Psychology, doi
10.1146/annualrev.psych.60.110707.163655
Igwe, I.C. (2018). A Critique of Martin Heidegger’s Conception of Calculative
Rationality and Meditative Thinking, a PhD Thesis in the Department of
Philosophy, Submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies, University of
LAGOS, Nigeria.
Lei, T.T. (2010). ―The Concept of Man in Confucius‗ Philosophy‖,
Hinthada University Research Journal, Vol. 2, No.1, pp.156-163 available
@ http://www.hinthadauniversity.edu.mm/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/hurj-vol2-Thin-Thin-Lae.pdf
Mbiti, J.S. (1969). African Religions and Philosophy, London: Heinemann
Publishers.
Ndubuisi, F.N. (2004). ―A Concept of Man in Africa Communalism‖ in
J.I. Unah (ed.) Metaphysics, Phenomenology and African Philosophy,
Lagos: FADEC publishers.
Onah, G. I. (2002). ―The Universal and the Particular in Wiredu‗s Philosophy of
Human Nature,‖ in Olusegun Oladipo (ed), The Third Way in African
Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Kwasi Wiredu, Ibadan: Hope
Publications.
Sogolo, G. (1993). Foundations of African Philosophy: A definitive Analysis
of Conceptual Issues In Africa Thought, Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. Human person; 2. (c)

26
UNIT 4: Theories of the Person: African and Eastern Content
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3 Theories of the Person
1.3.1 African
1.3.2 Eastern
1.3.3 Chinese
1.3.4 Japanese
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
A people‗s metaphysical account, strictly ontological account of reality, is a
comprehensive theory derived from their experience of the world, of the universe
informed by a theory of being or a principle of reality otherwise known as
metaphysics. A person‗s metaphysics is a position adopted and the reduction of all
reality, all experience to that position. The metaphysical position is more of an
editor of reality because it determines the principles or categories of reality that
governs the world of particular people, that grounds their experiences and that
explains the universe (Unah, 2004: 10). This is the reason why there are different
theories of the human person depending on cultural specifics. In other words, as
there are varied cultures in different societies, so there are varied views of what
constitutes the human person. It is within this paradigm that we shall situate the
African and Eastern conceptions of the human personality.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

This unit provides views about the person within the African and Eastern
context. Accordingly, at the end of the study, the students are expected to have
known the following:
 describe what constitutes the theory of the person
 Know that in African cultural interpretation, one does not become a person
until he or shehas met certain social requirements.
 Know that Africans have both the descriptive and normative concepts of the
person
 Should be able to describe the similarity between the African and the
Eastern views of the person.

1.3 Theories of the Person

A theory of a person in the true sense of the word refers to certain requirements
expected of a human being for one to be regarded as human person. There are
several theories about the person and in most cases; these theories are influenced
by culture, belief, religion or other forms of orientation. Although there are
27
 different perspectives about who a person is, there seems to be a consensus on the
fact that personhood is an earned status. With this in mind, let us proceed to
examine the African and Eastern conceptions of the person.

1.3.1 African
The African conception of human personality reflects the cultural uniqueness that
pervades its cultural space, social norms, belief and religion. ―The
conception of a man is different (among Africans) and, like that of Cartesian
Europe, is never dualist or dichotomist. There is never the separation between
body and soul found elsewhere‖ (Cf. Tembo, 1980: 2). In essence, African account
of reality is generally known to be a holistic one due to the manner in which it
interlocks both sensible beings (material) and non-sensible beings together as
aspects of the holistic world; having an interacting influence on each other. Just a
reminder of what we discussed in Unit 3 above, where we noted that there are two
approaches to the concept of man. This, according to Wiredu can also be found in
Akan-African traditional thought; one is descriptive and the other normative (see
unit 3 above).

As a matter of fact, it does appear that there are no unanimity of views on what
constitutes the human person in Africa due to slight variations in their views. In
other words, views on human person vary from one community to the other; but
maintain a common denominator (holism). ―Notwithstanding the perceived
variations in African cultures, works on African history, anthropology,
archeology, religion and philosophy are replete with notorious facts of sufficient
significant similarities and relative unanimity in the thought systems of Africans‖
(Igbafen, 2014:125). Wiredu for instance, explains the ontological or descriptive
basis of personhood in Akan society to include; Okra- the life principle and source
of human dignity and destiny. There is also what is understood as Sunsum (the
personality principle), and Mogya (the blood principle) (Onah, p. 75). There is
also such principles as Nipadua (the physical body), and Ntoro (that which is
responsible for the case of personality) i.e. the semen. Wiredu stated that the
Semen principle is inherited from one‗s father and is taken as the basis of
membership of patrilineal group. Differing slightly from the position of Wiredu,
Kwame Gyekye talks about a unified dualist view of the Akan concept of a person
as consisting of the Okra (the soul) and Nipadua (body); which does not entertain
the tripartite notion of the person (Gyekye 1984:200). In other words, Gyekye is
not in agreement with the tripartite view of man.

For the Yoruba interpretation of the human Person, Oyeshile (2006) writes that the
Yoruba believe that man is tripartite in nature. These three elements are ara
(body), emi (vital principle) and Ori (destiny). As such, the Yoruba believe that it
is ori that rules, controls and guides the life and activities of a person. The Ori as
the essence of a person derives from Olodumare (Supreme Being) and because this

28
Ori is derived from Oludumare, man is bound to Olodumare without which the
human being can never have his existence (Oyeshile, 2006: 157).

In terms of the material content of man, the Yoruba believe that ara stands for a
collective term for all the material components of a person. These components
which ara represents include Opolo (the brain), Okan (the heart), and Ifun (the
intestine). Explaining this further, Oladipo, writes: both Opolo and Okan are
regarded by the Yoruba as having some connections with human conscious
activities, thinking, feeling, etc. Opolo is regarded by them as having connections
with sanity and intelligence, to the extent that; ―when a person is insane, they say
―Opolo re ko pe‖ (his brain is not complete or not in order‖ (Oladipo, 1992:16).

On the other hand, Okan (psychical heart) which, apart from being closely
connected with blood is also regarded as the seat of emotions and physical energy
(Ibid). They believe strongly in emi as the element which provides the animating
force without which a person cannot be said to be living at all. While commenting
on the dualistic view of the African notion of man, Ndubuisi states that the
meaningfulness of the world and its order is centered on the self. Man and nature,
for an African, are inseparable and should not be seen as two independent realities.
The body and the soul are closely knitted. To him, the one should not be viewed as
distinct from the other. It is impossible to know one to the exclusion of the other
(Ndubuisi, 2004: 423-424).

Irrespective of these descriptive qualities of man in the African views, one can still
not be said to be a human person. In other words, one may be biologically certified
to be a human being yet, not a human person (see Igwe, 2018). For instance, in
Igbo-African society, a human being may be referred to as not a person if his or
her social conducts contradict the family, clan and community accepted norms and
values. As such, one often hears expressions like: onye a’bugho mmadu, or onye a
bu onye nzuzu (these man or woman is not a human person/anti-social).
Accordingly, Igbafen avers:
The degree of respect for and observance of one‗s communal
norms and values is crucial to asserting one‗s essence as a
person to the extent that the achievement of personhood in the
final analysis depends on one‗s ability to use communal
norms to guide one‗s actions. …the notion of an individual
who is not shaped by his community, its norms, and interests
does not make sense in African cultures (Igbafen, p. 126).

What is interesting about the African concept of personhood is that an individual

may possess his or her distinct individuality which differentiates him or she from
other animals and other fellow human beings; yet cannot be regarded as a person
in isolation of others. In essence, the answer to the question of what constitute the

29
 human person in Africa is approached from both the descriptive and normative
perspectives. In other words, man in African conception, is both an ontological
and normative being. And these two approaches are always at play whenever the
question of holistic personhood is raised. However, Africans appear to hold
tenaciously that a human being‗s relation to the society, communal norms and
values greatly confer the status of personhood to such individual. In this vein, all
persons are human beings but not all human beings are persons. Is this also true of
the Eastern conception of the person?

1.3.2 Eastern
Just as we have seen the way Africans conceive the human person, so also it is
necessary that we examine the views of the Eastern people on what constitutes
their definition of the human person. In doing this, rather than speak of the whole
Eastern people as though they are unified people with single worldview, we shall
select only the Chinese and the Japanese for consideration. This is because both
traditions have a shared-worldview. Ancient Chinese philosophy is not as unified
as the Africans‗ which is founded on communalism; thus, their worldviews are
scattered among different philosophical systems like Confucianism, Taoism,
Buddhism, and the rest (Unah, 2010:73). However, Confucianism seems to be
more widely accepted and imbibed by the Chinese people and across the Asian
continent and also bears similarity with the African views. For this reason, we can
single out Confucianism for discussion.

1.3.3 Chinese
Confucianism is a philosophical system whose founder is Confucius and its
doctrine is founded on the cultivation of virtues and human development. As such,
it contains both metaphysical and moral principles with which the followers are
expected to ground their reality. There are both individual and communal
perspectives to the understanding of the human person in Chinese; although
community appears to be more emphasized than individuality. In the words of
Igbafen (2014:136):
The Chinese since (antiquity) time immemorial have
had a clear inward vision of the self, person or
individual as a relatively coherent, enduring, and self-
contained entity that makes decision, carries
responsibility, is possessed by feelings, and in general
has a fate, a fortune, and a history.

However, in the Confucian system, the notion of self is not exactly the same as it
is understood in the west. Instead, self only comes to light in relation with the
society ―it is defined through the social institutions and relationships in the midst
of which it stands and which are instrumental in forming its character‖ (Ibid). The
essence of the human person is only actualized with community. Accordingly, the

30
 notion of an estrange individuality is unknown to Confucianism. A person is
defined in Chinese by his or her interaction or relation to other persons. In other
words, it is active social relation that defines the human person. It is more
interested in the social conduct as the determining factor of personhood. ―He
specialized not only in the orderly arrangement of society and relationship
between people but also in self- perfection and self-development, humanism and
moral rectitude as the ultimate goals of every person. Confucius proposed
procedures to cultivate self-development‖ (Lei, 2010:157-158). The real human
being in Confucius parlance is a man of Jen, that is the man whose moral conduct
is driven not by self-interest but by the interest of others, a man who does his
duties for duty; not for profit or praise (the society), because he loves his or her
fellowmen. Put differently, man is always considered as Man-in-society. It is true
that the Analects delineate Confucius and his followers as individuals, with
individual characteristics, occasionally with eccentricities; but the constant theme
is Man-in- relation, existing in a network of duties and obligations. Man for the
Confucianianists is a social being (Morten, 1971:69).

This is another way of saying that an isolated individuality or a recluse is not a

human person. In other words, for one to be qualified as a human person, one must
not only meet the biological requirements for a human being; like rationality and
other components but also be seen to be socially distinguished; both in conduct
towards others and in moral rectitude. Thus, the crux of Confucius theory of man
is that man is essentially a social being who has the society built around him; and
right from birth, growth, learning and death, the society remains the womb within
which all of these are incubated. Man is ―molded into who he is by these processes.
Society is nothing more than the interactions of men, because society is a product
of the individuals who compose it‖ (Hahn and Waterhouse, 1972:355). ―Everyone
in society has certain duties, certain things which he ought to perform, which he
ought to do, and which have to be done for their own sake‖ (Unah, 2010:82).
Therefore, for Chinese (Confucius), the human being possesses all the qualities
that distinguish man from animals like in the western sense; however, a human
person cannot be so called in the strict sense unless he or she has attained the state
of moral and ethical rectitude.

1.3.4 Japanese
For the Japanese, just as the Chinese, ―social relationship and social interaction
with other persons‖(Craemer, 1983:26) are definite characteristics of their
notion of personhood; although they do not deny the biological components in
man. For instance, they use the term ningen to indicate a human person who
occupies a physical space and inhabited by a spirit (see Brivio, 1980). Thus, human
being, person or man is understood in Japan as Ningen. But beyond that, Craemer
observes that the Japanese view of person is comparable to Bantu-African view
where community‗s reality takes a primal status over and above that of the

31
 individual. But unlike the African, the Japanese is relatively indifferent to
transcendental appeal (Craemer, 26). An individual identity in the Japanese
conception is derived from social identity, ―precisely because togetherness is
desirable‖ (Cf. Ibid). Accordingly, the Japanese will first identify him or herself
with the group before distinguishing his or her individual identity. Nakane (1974),
as cited my Craemer, writes:
…rather than say, ―I am a typesetter‖ or ―I am a filing
clerk,‖ he is likely to say, ―I am from B Publishing Group‖
or ―I belong to S Company‖…. In group identification, a
frame such as ―company‖ or ―associate‖ is of primary
importance; the attribute of the individual is a secondary
matter. The same tendency is found among intellectuals:
among university graduates, what matters most, and functions
the strongest socially, is not whether a man holds or does not
hold a PhD but rather from which university he graduated
(Cf. Craemer, p.27).

Just like it is in the African conception where communal identity is the defining
factor of personhood, so also it is with the Japanese where mutuality of
existence overshadows human individuality. One whose moral consideration is
determined by the feeling of the other is seen as a virtuous person. Thus, in the
Japanese world of human relations, empathy and emotionality play prominent
roles. That is, a person cannot be so called until he or she demonstrates such
quality in social relations. The autonomy of the individual becomes guaranteed
only in social involvement. This however is not to say that the Japanese lack the
sense of individual identity. Rather, what it implies is that although while the
individual retains his or her self-identity, there is a strong connect between
individual identity and social identity, to the extent that at any point where the
interest of both conflicts, the latter will take primal position. ―Self-identity, for
a Japanese, may ultimately derive from {establishing and reestablishing}
confidence in the purity of his inner self‖ (Lebra, 1976:161).

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. It is ________ that the Analects delineate Confucius and his followers as
individuals, with individual characteristics, occasionally with eccentricities
(a) false (b) Undetermined (c) true (d) Probably false

2. Confucianism is a philosophical system whose founder is _______

1.4 Summary
The import of the foregoing, is that social solidarity is the defining feature of both
African and Eastern theories of personhood. In other words, for the human person

32
 to be so called, all the biological qualities of human being must be in tandem with
the communal order, as it is only by so doing that the aspirations, yearnings, goals
and happiness of the human person can be guaranteed. In this unit, we have seen
that the theory of the human person varies from society to society, from culture to
culture. None of them lays claim or denies the biological component of the human
person. Rather, they seem to be saying the biological requirement of human being
there are other social demands which one must need to be qualified as a human
person.

1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Brivio, C. (1980). The Human Being: When Philosophy Meets History Miki
Kiyoshi, Watsuji Tetsurō and Their Quest for a New Ningen, available @
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13835/Proefschrift.
pdf?sequence=5
Creamer, W. (1983). ―A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Personhood‖, in The
Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, Vol.61, No.1,
pp.19-34, available @https://www.jstor.org/3349814
Gyekye, K. (1984).―The Akan Concept of a Person,‖ in Richard A. Wright (ed),
African Philosophy: An Introduction, Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America.
Hahn, C.K. and Waterhouse, W.C. (1972). ―Confucius Theories of Man and
Organizations‖ in The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3,
pp. 355-363 https://www.jstor.org/stable/254860

Igbafen, M.L. (2014). The Concept of Person in African and Chinese

Philosophies: A Comparative Inquiry, in International Journal of
Philosophy and Theology, Vol.2, No. 3. Pp.121- 149,
doi:10.15640/ijpt.v2n3a10
Igwe, I.C. (2018). A Critique of Martin Heidegger’s Conception of Calculative
Rationality and Meditative Thinking, a PhD Thesis in the Department of
Philosophy, Submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies, University of
LAGOS, Nigeria.
Lebra, T.S. (1976). Japanese Patterns of Behaviour, Honolulu: University Press.
Lei, T.T. (2010). ―The Concept of Man in Confucius‗ Philosophy‖,
Hinthada University Research Journal, Vol. 2, No.1, pp.156-163 available
@ http://www.hinthadauniversity.edu.mm/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/hurj-vol2-Thin-Thin-Lae.pdf
Morten, W.S. (1971). ―The Confucian Concept of Man: The Original
Formulation‖ in Philosophy East and West, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 69-77,
University of Hawai Press. Available @
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1397765
Ndubuisi, F.N. (2004). ―A Concept of Man in Africa Communalism‖ in
J.I. Unah (ed.) Metaphysics, Phenomenology and African Philosophy,

33
 Lagos: FADEC publishers.
Oladipo, O. (1992), “The Yoruba Concept of a Person: an Analytico-
Philosophical Study‖, International Studies in Philsophy, 34 (3).
Onah, G. I. (2002). ―The Universal and the Particular in Wiredu‗s Philosophy of
Human Nature,‖ in Olusegun Oladipo (ed), The Third Way in African
Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Kwasi Wiredu, Ibadan: Hope
Publications.
Oyeshile, O. A. (2006a), ―The physical and Non-physical in Yoruba concept of
the Person‖,in Philosophia De Sellentt, Vol. 35, 2.
Tembo, M.S. (1980). Concept of African Personality among Zambia Students:
Sociological Implications- Summary of M.A. Thesis, Institute for African
Studies, University of Zambia.
Unah, J.I. (2010). Metaphysics, Lagos: University of Lagos Press.

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. (c); 2. Confucius

34
UNIT 5: Theories of the Person: Western Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Mental State as Constituents of Person
1.3.2 Material State as Constituents of Person
1.3.3 Dualism of the human person
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
As we hinted in Unit 3 where we briefly discussed the two approaches to
understanding the person, this Unit promises to widen and explain those
approaches. Throughout the history of western education, the discourse about the
person is bifurcated along two schools of thought; idealism and materialism;
although each of these conceptions is deeply rooted in the notion of ―the person
as essentially individual and rational in nature‖ (Craemer, 1983: 32). While trying
to aggregate the views of the person in western scholarship, we said in Unit 3
that certain realities about the person suggest that there is body/physical and
mental components or states constituting the human person. Thus, the summary
of the western view of the person is that the human person is a being who
possesses both the bodily and mental states. In that line, apart from other
biological traits, the western conception of the human person is based on
individuality, consciousness and rationality. This notion often raises metaphysical
debates about what exactly consciousness and ―about the identity of states of
consciousness with particular bodies, and about how we differentiate
ourselves from what is not
ourselves‖(https://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/encyclopedias-almanacs-
transcripts-and- maps/personhood) . Thus, implications of using consciousness
and rationality as the distinguishing mark of personhood include that; first, the
human person is morally liable for his actions; that one that is in a vegetative state
is not in the same level of personhood with one that is fully active; that an insane
person is less a person to a sane person. It is in the debate to trulyunderstand the
human person that arguments about mental/soul versus bodily/physical states
ensue. All of these will play out in the course of delivering instructions on this
unit.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

The discussion in this unit promises to be interesting; at the end of which the
students areexpected to achieve the following:-
 Able to describe how idealism and materialism contest personhood
 Able to establish how mental and bodily activities define human life.

35
1.3.1 Mental State as Constituent of Human Person
The first question that comes to mind here is, what constitutes the mental state of
being? Simply put, we can say that the mental is the non-physical; it is that aspect
of the human person which perceives, feels, remembers imagines, wills, and above
all, thinks. It is other-wise called the mind (Igwe, 2018). The mind is an
immaterial entity in which all mental states and processes occur: thinking,
imagining, feeling, memories, ideas and so on, are the properties of the mind
(Bunge 1980:1). Some philosophers aptly describe or substitute the mind with the
soul and spirit. In this sense, the mind is viewed as a faculty, the cognitive faculty,
the power to think or a reality that has the capacity to connect divine light from the
soul or spirit through consciousness. Put differently, any being that has the
capacity to think has a mind. Hence if you want to identify the existence of a mind
is by evidence of thinking. Those who argue along this line are called idealists.

Accordingly, the idealists hold that man is a thinking being. They further insist
that even if there are material components of the human person, they are reducible
to the mental phenomena. Armstrong (1968:5), further explains:
Some theories of mind and body try to reduce body to mind
or some property of mind. Such theories may be called
mentalist theories. Thus, according to Hegel and his
followers, the Absolute Idealists, the whole material world is
really mental or spiritual in nature, little as it may appear so.
According to Leibniz, material objects are colonies or
rudimentary souls.

This view can be classified as belonging to a philosophical theory known

as idealism; and in the view of Omoregbe (2001:5), it means a philosophical theory
or school of thought Which gives primacy to spirit or idea over matter in its
conception of reality Idealists generally deny the existence of Matter as an
autonomous entity or substance existing on its own, independently of any mind or
spirit. Accordingly, Omoregbe further classifies idealism to be of two types;
subjective idealism and objective idealism (Ibid). The former reduces matter to
idea, while the latter deny matter completely. Amstrong, agrees with Omoregbe‗s
view about subjective idealist. In his observation that Bishop Berkeley and his
philosophical descendants, the phenomena-lists, hold that physical objects are
constructions out of ideas or sense impressions (Armstrong, 1968:5).

Objective idealists exemplified by the German idealists such as Hegel, Schelling,

Fitchte; completely deny the independent existence of matter as an entity or as a
separate and different substance from mind. According to Omoregbe, what we see
as material objects are self- projections or manifestations of a spiritual reality
underlying them (Omoregbe, 2001: 6). What this view establishes is that there is a
spirit, soul or mind in the ultimate reality underlying every matter whatsoever. As

36
 such the human person is predominantly spiritual. To some other philosophers, the
soul ought to be admitted as a complete substance of its own. This is because in
their views its substantiality is identified with that of man and man has nothing
other than soul, since the soul is gifted with its own act of being. Man is
completely a spiritual substance (Mondin, 1985:219). Stressing this view further,
Belser (1993: 4) states that Schelling conceives the absolute as that which does not
depend upon anything else in order to exist or be conceived. In this sense, the
Absolute is both existence and essence. It is independent of, and unconditioned by
any other thing. The absolute is a causi sui; that whose essence necessarily
involves existence (Ibid).

The thrust of the idealist view on the human person is that the mental, mind, spirit
or soul takes primacy in the constitution of the human person. According to the
idealist, matter is reducible to the mental. The whole of this was captured in
George Berkeley‗s ‗esse est percipi to be is to be perceived‗. Schopenhauer, a
German philosopher, on his part, reduced the entire reality to mental phenomena
in his popular view about the world as ‗will and idea‗. This of course is the
idealist conception of the human person. At this juncture, it is important for us to
look at its rival school of materialism.

1.3.2 The Material State as Constituent of the Person

Just like the idealist school took the extreme position in the conception of the
human person by completely denying any material component in the makeup of
the human person, so also the materialist views the notion of the mental, mind,
spirit or soul as illusory. In their view, the mind is not a thing apart, but a set of
brain functions or activities (Bunge, 1980:1).

In this sense, it implies that activities such as perceiving, imagining, thinking,

dreaming, desiring, et cetera, would all be brain processes. In essence, the
materialists take material reality as a point of departure and as such, every other
activity there is, only becomes a function of the material. It is otherwise known as
materialist or physicalist theories of mind. Armstrong (1968), writes: for a
materialist, man is nothing but a physical object and so he is committed to giving a
purely physical theory of the mind (p.10).

It must also be noted here that what we have come to know today as materialism is
associated with Democritus and his atomic theory in which he states that
everything that constitutes reality is made up of atoms. Although he does not deny
the reality of the mental, he maintains that they are material in the final analysis in
that, just like everything else, they are made up of atoms. For this type of
reasoning, it makes no sense to speak of the human person with words like soul,
mind, or spirit existing side by side with the body. In a case whereby such
elements exist, they simply arise from the functions of the nervous system. Within

37
 this view, there are those who out rightly deny the reality of the mental and there
are those who admit that although the mental exist but are reducible to matter in
the process of its development. This is what Armstrong meant when he stated
that in opposition to the mental theory, ―we have materialist theories which
try to reduce mind to body or to some property of body‖ (Ibid, p.5). In clarifying
this view, Omoregbe, (1996:84) further writes:
Like Democritus, before him, Epicurus also held that
everything in reality was made of atoms, and that only
matter existed. All events and activities in the universe
were also explained by him as due to the movement of
atoms as they float about in the void. The combination
of a number of atoms as they clash with one another in
their downward movement accounts for the coming
into existence of things. The human souls and even the
gods are all composed of atoms.

This is the scientific position on the human person; although there are still those
who seem to dangle between the material constitution of the human person and
dualism. Closely related to the doctrine of materialism is naturalism which
Armstrong describes as ―the doctrine that reality consists of nothing but a single
all-embracing spatiotemporal system‖ (Stumpf, 2002: 188). Armstrong rejects the
idealism of thinkers such as Berkeley who denied the existence of matter. This is
because he believes that denial of the existence of matter is based on a priori
argument; that is, arguments independent of experience rather than on empirical
evidence. Materialism and naturalism are very much alike although physicalism
which is another word for materialism seems to be a narrower concept than
naturalism. Materialism agrees with naturalism on reality being spatiotemporal.
However, it argues that all spatiotemporal entities comprise the entities known by
physics. That is, entities like molecules, atoms, electrons, etc. On this note some
scholars have argued that ―it is possible for materialism to be false and naturalism
to still be true‖ (Ibid). If we then bring the materialistic theory to bear on the
human person, it would mean that the human contains nothing other than the
entities recognized by physics. In this case the place for mind spirit or soul is
unknown to it, and if there be any, it is subsumed under behaviourism or brain
processes.

1.3.3 Dualism of Human Person

Although properly elaborated in Descartes‗ philosophy, the father of Dualism
according to Omoregbe (2001) is Plato. Dualism means two. A dualist view about
the human person is one that holds that mind and body are distinct. A man for the
dualists is a compound object, a material thing, which also relates somehow to a
non-material aspect of him-the mind. According to Armstrong (1968), there are
two main types of dualist theory. He identifies them to be: one which is of a

38
 Cartesian origin. For Cartesian Dualism, the mind is a single non-material or
spiritual substance which is somehow related to the body. The other type of
dualism Armstrong identifies as Bundle Dualism. He explains that the term bundle
relates to Hume‗s notorious description of the mind as a bundle of perception
(Armstrong, 1968:6-7).

Again, Armstrong distinguishes between Interactionist dualism and Parallelist

dualism. The former, he understands to mean a theory of mind whereby the body
acts on the mind; the mind reacts on the body. That is, in this case, there is a dual
relationship, the body acting on the mind, and the mind reacting on the body. He
likened it to a room-thermometer relationship in which case, a rise in the
temperature of the room brings about changes in the thermostat: the changes in the
thermostat in turn affect the room bringing back its temperature to a certain level
(p. 8). On the other hand, the latter thinks of body and as related like room and
thermometer. The body they say acts on the mind, but the mind is incapable of
reacting back on the body in any way at all (Ibid). Within the parallelist theory we
have yet another version which could be called extreme parallelist theory. For this
view, not only is the mind incapable of acting on the body, but the body is also
incapacitated of acting on the mind. In all, what the dualist view upholds without
controversy is that mind and body, mental and material, constitute the human
person.

The point to take home from our various discussion (starting from the African,
Chinese, Japanese and Western views) on what constitutes the human person are
that; every civilization has at least one collection of ideas that can be identified as
their concept or theory of a person; that it is through this concept of a person that
we understand the difference between the human person and other kinds of beings.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. The thrust of the _______ view on the human person is that the mental,
mind, spirit or soul takes primacy in the constitution of the human person.

2. Who is not an objective idealist (a) Hegel (b) Fichte (c) Schelling (d) Marx

1.4 Summary
This unit has centered on the western conception of the human person which is
built on a radically opposed schools of idealism and materialism. While the
idealist theory of the person favours the nonphysical, spiritual or soul elements as
defining personhood, the materialist theory contends that the human person is a
component of matter, and that if there is any mental constituent of the person, it is
explainable through brain processes. A somewhat reconciliatory position is that of
dualism, which makes provisions for both elements to conveniently cohabit in a

39
 complementary kind of relationship; thereby dousing the tension generated by
hardline idealist or materialist metaphysics of personhood. The search for a true
doctrine of personhood begun with the African and Asian conceptions brought us
into the mainstream of western European rigid schools of idealism and
materialism; which is construed as scientific accounts of the philosophy of the
person. What we found out in the western position is that personhood is defined by
consciousness and rationality; without recourse to communal sentiments or moral
reference which are favoured by African and Asian conceptions. Still, still all of
these views appear not have satisfactorily address the problem under reference;
which leaves a lacuna for further research.

1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Armstrong, D. M. (1968), A Materialist Theory of Mind, London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Belser, F.C. (1993). Introduction: Hegel and the Problem of Metaphysics. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Bunge M. (1980), The Mind-Body Problem: A Psychological Approach, Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Creamer, W. (1983). ―A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Personhood‖, in The
Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, Vol.61, No.1,
pp.19-34, available @https://www.jstor.org/3349814
Igwe, I.C. (2018). A Critique of Martin Heidegger‗s Conception of Calculative
Rationality and Meditative Thinking, a PhD Thesis in the Department of
Philosophy, Submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies, University of
LAGOS, Nigeria.
Mondin, B. (1985), Philosophical Anthropology, Man: An Impossible Project?
Rome: Urbaniana University Press.
Omoregbe, J. I. (1996), A simplified History of Western Philosophy, Vol. II Lagos:
JojaEducational Research and Publishers Ltd.
Omoregbe J. (2001), Philosophy of Mind An Introduction to Philosophical
Psychology. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishes Limited.
Stumpf, S. E. (2002), Elements of Philosophy: An Introduction, New York:
McGraw Hill.

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. idealist; 2. (d)

End of Module Exercises (A)

1. ―Man, know theyself‖; for ―an unexamined life is not worth living,‖ Is a
proposition popular with _________

40
 2. In _______‗s view, to seek knowledge about man is to seek knowledge about God.

3. The _______ approach has to do with the social status of a responsible member of
a society.

4. A theory of a person in the true sense of the word refers to certain requirements
expected of a human being for one to be regarded as _______

5. Omoregbe further classifies idealism to be of _______ types (a) Three (b) Two
(c) Six (d) Four

End of Module Exercises (B)

1. The field of study which studies man is known as:
(a) Philosophy
(b) Psychology
(c) Sociology
(d) Anthropology

2. Which among the following is the most suitable definition of anthropology?

(a) The study of white man
(b) The study of black man
(c) The study of man
(d) The study of primitive man

3. The term anthropology is a derivation of two Greek words

(a) Anthropos and law
(b) Anthropos and logos
(c) Anthropos and logic
(d) Anthropology

4. Anthropos is a Greek tern which in English language means?

(a) Human being/man
(b) Human being/animal
(c) Man/woam
(d) Anthropology

8. The following were listed by Erickson as constituting the key concepts in

anthropology?
(a) Man, woman, girl, boy and community
(b) person, society, culture, translation and comparison, holism and context
(c) ancient, primitive, modern, culture and people

41
(d) history, man, activity, culture and politics

6 From the etymological derivative, anthropos means a being which has its face turned
up;which of these terms exactly depict the Greek meaning?
(a) Dasein and man
(b) Anthropos and logos
(c) Ana and prosopos
(d) Plato and forms

7 Which of the following is the most authentic meaning of anthropology?

a. Study of man and his activities
b. Study of man
c. Study of primitive man
d. Study of civilized man

8 Through the activities of the following individuals we got information about

anthropology

a. Prophets, fortune tellers and diviners

b. Voyagers, explorers, historians and expansionists
c. Professors, doctors, and teachers
d. None of the above

9 In the sphere of human variation, anthropologists study

a. Why human beings vary biologically
b. Human traits inheritance
c. Environmental effects on population characteristics
d. All of the above

10 The adjective ‗anthropocentric‗ means; ?

a. Man centered view
b. God centered view
c. None of the above
d. All of the above

11 The dictum ‗man know thyself‗ is credited to which philosopher?

a. Moses
b. Jim Unah
c. Plato
d. Socrates

12 In what way does philosophy make inroads into anthropology?

a. By establishing the claim that anthropology has derailed

42
b. By showing that anthropology has not fundamentally answered the question, what is
man?
c. By exploring metaphysically the essential characteristics of man; establishing that
man has a capacity to transcend his natural limitations in the quest of authenticity
d. All of the above

13 Divine centered conception of man is represented by?

a. St Augustine and Moses
b. St Aquinas and Protagoras
c. St Augustine and Aquinas
d. Sigmund Freud
14 A misconception about anthropology resulted in…
a. Racism, racialism, xenophobia and colonialism
b. Conception, corruption, and confusion
c. None of the above
d. The abandonment of anthropology

15 The conception of the human person is often said to be…?

a. Culturally influenced
b. Without bias
c. Without prejudice
d. Independent of culture

16 Africa has two perspectives from which it considers man

a. Big man and poor man
b. Descriptive and normative
c. Good man and evil man
d. All of the above

17 The African normative concept of the human person has to do with

a. The level of wealth of a person
b. The height of a person
c. In respect to the individuals‗ obedience to community‗s values
d. Normal human beings

18 The nexus between the African and Asian conception is that; beyond biological
requirement for a human being, the status of personhood is earned based on:
a One‗s intelligence
b. Smartness
c Fidelity to communal established norms and values.
d Hard work

19 which of the following system of philosophies has a strong similarity with the

43
 African?
a. Taoism
b. Atomism
c. Westernism
d. Confucianism

20 The term for personhood in Japanese thought is

a Brahman
b Ningen
c Jen
d Man of the people

21 The conflict generated by the mental and material components of the human
person isknown as;
a spirit and flesh problem
b Mind-body problem
c Second world war
d Dualism

44
Module 2
Unit 1: Crises of the Human Person and Causes
Unit 2: Dimensions or Aspects of the Crises of the Person
Unit 3: Manifestations of the Crises of the Person
Unit 4: A Fundamental Ontology of the Human Person
Unit 5: The Goal of a Fundamental Philosophy of the Person

45
UNIT 1: Crises of the Human Person and Causes Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Background to the Crises
1.3.2 Sources of the Crises
1.3.3 Identity Crises
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
Anthropology as we have seen from its history and development encompasses a
whole lot of things. As we pointed out in module one, it engages in the study of
human beings; their biological constitution, normative dimensions and activities.
Different cultures have different ways in which they view the human person and
what is expected of human beings before they can qualify as accepted members of
the human community. Philosophical anthropology has the noble task of directly
calibrating what belongs to human beings in general without regard to colour,
race, size and status. Unfortunately, the history of anthropology in Africa from our
study in module One, took the shape of narrating what humans do instead of
concentrating on the general constitution of the human person, whether black or
white. It is in the process of describing what a particular people do or what they
fail to do, in comparison with other groups of people elsewhere that the notion of
superior race or superior culture and inferior or primitive culture was smuggled
into anthropological studies. These different dimensions introduced in the study of
the human person by different cultures and in different works of anthropologists
have brought crises in the study of anthropology. Consequently, philosophy as the
parent discipline attempted to come to the rescue of anthropology to furnish it with
a more solid foundation. This mission was not successfully accomplished; thus
necessitating that a more fundamental approach be applied to the study of
personhood, in this module.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit you are expected to:-
 Identify the root cause[s] of the crises of personhood
 Know the nature of the crises

1.3.1 Background to the Crises

In Unit one of the first Module, we made attempts to explain the meaning of
anthropology. The conclusion we arrived at was that anthropology studies man
from different perspectives. We identified the cultural, linguistic, religious, and
racial perspectives to the study of man (see Module One: Units One & Two). The
46
 reason for the manifestation of these cultural and other dimensions of man is
embedded in the nature of reality. Since every conception of virtually
everything varies cross-culturally, so too is the conception of the person. And as
argued by Melford (1993:107-108), ―not only conceptions of the self, but also the
self itself, for if the self varies across individuals within one and the same society,
then it surely can be presumed that it varies across societies‖. But if the notion of
the self or the human person varies across cultures, does that imply that it is
impossible to have an all-round narrative of personhood?

Virtually in all the units of the first module, attempts were made to explain the
various views about the human person. We looked at the African view, the Eastern
view and the Western view. Each of these views about the constituents of the
human person appears to have thrown more confusion with regards to who a
person really is. For instance, John Locke, a British thinker, provided certain
capacities that a human person must possess. In his view, for one to be a human,
one must be ―a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can
consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places‖(Cf.
Milne, 2006:146). Joseph Fletcher on his part, made an attempt to distinguish
between being human and being a person. His argument is that some human
beings at a point cease to be a person depending on certain circumstances. This
form of argument about human person is based on the fact of functionality. In
other words, this view is against the general notion that all human beings are
human persons. On the contrary, what should define who a human person really is,
is the fact of consciousness and feelings. Unfortunately, this form of view poses a
problem to clear understanding of the person. This is because; to maintain this
type of view simply means to support abortion or euthanasia, for instance. The
implication of Fletcher‗s position is that, for instance, one who by accident or
illness becomes unconscious can as well be disposed of as not belonging to the
category of persons. This, again, introduces more crises into the effort to secure an
understandingof the human person.

1.3.2 Sources of the Crises

This undertaking to secure a better understanding of the nature of the person may
be further illuminated with a discussion of aspects of human nature; which is
characterized by the exercise of freedom, volition and choices that often run
counter to the perceptions of others around us, and sometimes we ourselves act to
contradict our previous convictions. This is described as the ambivalence of
human nature, or the porousness and predicament of the human condition. In the
physical universe, human beings perceive and engage in social interactions. We
perceive the letters, words and sentences of this discourse through the sense of
sight – the eyes. Also, we perceive that the letters are printed on white paper with
black ink. We perceive that while we read to participate in the discourse, some
other people, nearby do not do the same. Through the sense of taste; by the tongue,

47
 each person could perceive the taste of the previous meal; to be either delicious or
sour. Through the sense of smell – by the nostrils, we can differentiate polluted air
from uncontaminated air. Through the sense of touch - by the skin we perceive,
say, external pains caused by heat or pricking by the niddle. Through the sense of
hearing – the ear, we can perceive the ringing tones of our mobile handsets each
moment the number is dialed. Also, we can perceive the sound from the
neighborhoods; our family members, our classmates, our lecturers; of vehicles, of
guns, of bombs, of aircrafts, even of ourselves. All of these characterize human
nature and they constitute the fundamental sources of personal and interpersonal
crises.

But it is not perception that informs us of the nature and entailments of the
information fetched by the senses; rather it is reason – the faculty of rationality.
We perceive through the senses but know by reason. We are able to discriminate
between: white and black colours, sweat and bitter taste, pleasant and unpleasant
odor or smell, pain and pleasure; hot and cold temperature, loud and quiet sounds,
by reason. Further, we discern, understand, interpret and apply information or
sensations by reason. Reason enables us to go beyond or transcend the perceptible
objects; to cognize, interpret, understand, know and recognize perceived objects
after the particular moments they are perceived. Rationality is the activity of the
mind for understanding of both physical facts and non-physical realities. To this
end, rationality is essentially associated with metaphysics – after the physical.

Rationality enables human being to think clearly about anything, take positions,
draw conclusions and make judgments even on issues that may not secure general
consensus. How then do the physical and non-physical nature of human being
relate to the crises of human person? Issuing from our discussion above, it is due
to the natural endowment of man as a rational being with free will. It is plurality
not properly understood and managed that amounts to interpersonal and inter-
group crisis. They amount to crisis because; they are not just plural but different
and sometimes contradictory. Based on our pattern of discourse, there is a
structural connection between irreconcilable contradictions and crisis. All of these
constitute the fundamental sources of crises in the human person.

1.3.3 Identity Crises

Thus, there is the crisis of identity. Identity crisis as a term, is said to have
originated in the work of a developmental psychologist Erik Erickson (Cherry,
2019
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-an-identity-crisis-2795948). He is of the
view that it is through identity formation that an individual distinguishes and
affirms his or her existence. Put differently by Locke, what matters about the
human person is self-consciousness. This is because according to him, ―in all our
thinking we are conscious of ourselves as the subject of all our actions – ―in

48
 this alone consists personal identity, i.e. the sameness of a rational being‖
(Milne, 2006:146). Now, on the strength of Lockean definition above, should we
accept rationality as the sole requirement for the human person? Do we accept the
view that what constitutes the human person is solely the body or can it be sound
to admit the existence of spiritual, mental or non- physical components in the
human person?

Again, is the human person a free agent or is he or she constrained by certain

inevitable circumstances that he or she responds to; in other words, what is the
place of freedom or determinism in the question of the human person if indeed the
human person is a divine project that was fully created to fulfill certain divine
purposes? Thus, it suffices to say that all the attempts made at understanding the
human person in different civilizations, as observed in Module One, have left us
more confused about who the human person really is. Although all the different
accounts seem to have varied opinion about what constitutes the human person;
nevertheless, ―they share a core belief that personhood is not something that
belongs intrinsically to every human being‖ (Ibid, p.147); which in itself is a
problem that could brew crises of its own.

What is responsible for the identity crisis identified above is the double identity
characterization of human reality. For instance, in respect to mind-body dichotomy
of the human person; which should we accept as the authentic view about the
human person? Is it true that, apart from the physical body that we can see of the
human person, there is a mental, spiritual or soul element? What is your opinion
on this?

Furthermore, if we are to admit the views of scholars that the distinguishing mark
of the human person is reason, then what about the infants, the insane, the
vegetative or the stupid? Or, if we accept that the deciding factor for human
person is about functionality and consciousness; are we now saying that embryo
and the brain-dead aren‗t human?

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Rationality is seen as the sole determinant of identity (a) True (b) Partially true (c)
Contestable (d) false

2. ________ enables human being to think clearly about anything, take

positions, draw conclusions and make judgments even on issues that may
not secure general consensus

1.4 Summary
In the course of discussions in this unit, rationality and functionality have been
identified as the determinants of personhood, which have been noted to introduce

49
 identity crises. But other contending factors, such as being born into the world are
also germane to personal identity. In other words, beyond functionality or
consciousness, the human person must be socially alive. This view resonates in the
African, Chinese and Japanese conceptions which we considered in Module One.
This perspective automatically excludes a social rebel from the class of human
persons. That is to say that, one who is biologically certified as a human being
would on the basis of conduct, be denied personhood. In other words, if as a
human being, I have consistently misbehaved in a socially antithetical manner, I
am therefore rendered by social definition as not belonging to the group of beings
called human persons. Such, prompts the question who am I? It also reduces
personality self-worth. Put differently, if there is an observable behavioural quality
of a person which I run short of; does that reduce my status as a person? The point
to stress on this is that a study of the person based on communal or collective
identity also leads to identity crisis. From the forgoing, it seems undeniable that
when anthropology is studied from cultural or linguistic dimensions, it leaves
identity of the person confused and introduces racism into anthropology. This
deliberately contrived weapon was used for imperial and colonial subjugation of
peaceful people. Evidently, it is on account of the fact that man is involved in so
many activities as he goes about his daily rounds, that the anthropologists make
the mistake, deliberately or inadvertently, of engaging in the description of these
activities and at the end, leave the question who is the human person in general
unanswered.

1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Cherry, (2019)https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-an-identity-crisis-2795948
Melford, E.P. (1993). Is the Western Conception of the Self "Peculiar" within the
Context of the World Cultures, Available @
https://www.jstor.org/stable/640371 Accessed: 23-08-2019 13:45 UT
Milne, J.W.D. (2006). A religious, ethical and philosophical study of the human
person in the context of biomedical practices. Doctoral thesis, Australian
Catholic University). Retrieved
fromhttps://doi.org/10.4226/66/5a94b4495e4bc

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. (c); 2. rationality

50
UNIT 2: Dimensions or Aspects of the Crises of the Person Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Conflicting Definitions of Personhood
1.3.2 Conflicting Accounts of Human Nature or Human reality
1.3.3 Mind-Body Problem
1.3.4 Freedom and Determinism
1.3.5 Egoism and Altruism
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
A very crucial aspect of the crisis of the human person lies in the multiple
definitions often given to it. Some of the examples of these include, but not limited
to, the mind-body problem; the problem of freedom and determinism, the problem
of egoism and altruism. Descartes, in his meditations, holds that mind and body
are distinct substances which, nevertheless, interact. How could two things with
two radically different natures be domiciled in the human person and suppose that
there won‗t be disorder in such an entity? Again, there is a debate in philosophy
regarding the nature of human actions. The debate thrives on the question whether
human actions are free or determined. In the same vein, moral philosophers are
locked in a controversy in regard to the underlying motivation of the actions of
the human person.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

At the end of this learning unit, you should be able to do the following:-

 Identify some aspects of the crises of personhood

 Describe some of the conflicting aspects of personhood
 Attempt some solutions to aspects of the identified conflicts

1.3.1 Conflicting Definitions of Personhood

Personhood or personal identity has been defined as:
(i) Capacity for intelligent reasoning; rational thought, consciousness;
(ii) Functionality; utility;
(iii) sentience (being with feeling);
(iv) Moral responsibility;
(v) Community recognition;
(vi) Alignment with and recognition of Divine purpose;
(vii) An amalgam of neurological processes

51
1.3.2 Conflicting Accounts of Human Nature or Human Reality
The above list suggests the following: you are a human person or have attained
personhood when you display capacity for intelligent reasoning, ability for rational
thought and reasonable choices in the midst of conflicting, oft-tempting,
alternatives. If intelligence confers personality or personhood, are robots designed
to display intelligence such as functioning as medical diagnosticians, receptionists,
search engines, drivers, et cetera, qualify for personhood?

In the same way, functionality, utility and sentience have been advanced as
essential qualities of personhood. This means that a person is a person because he
or she can perform certain physical activities and is conscious of his or her
environment; for instance, he or she can talk, feel, express love and empathy, et
cetera. But if these were to be granted as the proper requirements of personal
identity, would individuals in vegetative, embryonic, fetal, unconscious, states be
denied personhood?

It has also been averred that moral responsibility and performance of social
obligations confer personhood. This position means that a human being could
only qualify to be a person if and only if his actions and conducts are in
agreement with prescribed norms of behaviour of the society or community. If
conformity with social norms defines a person as a person where lies personal
identity and freedom of action? Where lies the uniqueness of the individual human
being? Where do you place dissidents, sexual minorities, and mentally challenged
individuals?

It has also been advanced in some quarters that alignment of the individual with
the divine purpose for his existence qualifies an individual to be a person. St.
Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas have expressed views
that assign personhood on the basis of Divine or celestial recognition. How does
the theory of Divine recognition and purpose of personhood coexist with human
freedom?

Personhood has also been defined in terms of the possession of neurological

composition. This means that to be a person is explainable wholly in terms of
brain processes and the nervous system; without reference to and independent of
mental states. If this is correct about the human personality, how is it that the
phenomena of astral travels, clairvoyance, and parapsychological occurrences
feature in human reality? All of these will appear to have ignored the invaluable
contributions of Soul or Mind philosophers, such as Plato and Descartes, in the
development of western thought. In particular, we need to acquaint ourselves with
Descartes‗ position on the nature of mind in its relationship with the body.

52
1.3.3 Mind-Body Problem
In his Meditations Descartes holds the view that mind and body are distinct
substances which cohabits the human space. In his explanation of the self or the
person, the expression, Cogito ergo Sum [I think therefore I am] establishes the
fact that human personality lies in the heart of consciousness. Here, the dictum, ‗I
think‗, is the major defining characteristic of human existence. He goes further to
state that the root of consciousness is the mind, rather than the brain. In other
words, the mind, in his understanding is the self, which performs the act of
consciousness such as: thinking, imagining, doubting, reflecting, planning and
willing. Against this backdrop, Descartes describes consciousness as mental, as
thought and non-spatial in character. What then is mental or non-spatial event?
Warburton (1999:131) clearly answers it thus: ―mental aspects are such things as
thinking, feeling, deciding, dreaming, imagining, and wishing and so on‖.
Accordingly, Descartes believes that mental elements cannot be extended in space.
The nature of the mind is therefore thought. Aside the existence of a thinking thing
(mind or the self), Descartes posits that the body also exists. To him, his body
includes: his face, arms, and other members composed of bones and flesh
including human brain. All these are, in his view, divisible, spatial, and capable of
being extended. Hence, he wrote:
By body, I understand all that which can be defined by
a certain figure. Something which can be defined in a
certain place, and which can fill a given space in such
a way that every other body will be excluded from it;
which can be perceived either by touch or sight or
hearing or taste (Descartes, 1968:279).

This quotation shows that the body is different from the mind and equally implies
that they are two ontologically disparate substances. But again, how do I explain a
non-spatial mind being trapped in a spatial body? This double-identity of the
human person poses a problem.

Indeed, the mind body-problem is one of the persistent problems which

philosophers have struggled for centuries to resolve. From the time of Descartes in
the seventeenth century it has been an issue of prime importance. The reason for
this is due partly to the growing influence of science, with its desire to describe the
world in qualitative and mathematical terms.

Descartes also says that, apart from these two elements simply existing, they are
also radically distinct in nature. Put differently, the mind-body problem originated
from the Cartesian attempts to answer the question; what is the fundamental nature
of mind and body as constituents of the human person? As was further queried by
Stumpf (2002:198); if mind and body are two very different kinds of substances,
how could something non mental affect something material or vice versa? How

53
 are mind and body related being that for Descartes, mind and body are two
radically different entities, two different substances? Descartes further explains
that the basic features of material objects are their geometric qualities like size,
shape, weight, et cetera. On the contrary, the basic feature of the mental is
thinking. In other words, while material objects are extended in length, breadth,
and depth, non-extension and thought are the nature of thinking substance. To
reconcile the problem elicited by the notion of mind-body difference; Descartes,
again, introduced what he called dualistic interactionalism.

1.4.5 Freedom and Determinism

Another dimension to the crisis of human person lies in the debate whether or not
man is free or determined. This has been known in philosophical discourse as
freedom and determinism. Freedom is considered as a fundamental component of
human being. In the views of the existentialists, it is freedom that confers meaning
on human existence. Freedom is the most precious gift given to man by nature. By
freedom, he charts or determines the course of existence. Also, within the
existential framework, being-in-the-world and being-with-others; at different
social units and in course of time, different experiences inform different thoughts
and different decisions. These again amounts to contradictions; both of the self
and of others. Podolny considered such magnitude of contradictions thus:
People so frequently contradict, not only others, but
themselves as well. They change their point of view, correct
themselves, agree with others... Evidently, there is no other
way to get to know the universe, which is also full of
contradictions (Podolny, 1986:206).

Freedom is exercised by man‗s capacity to act and not to act in a particular way; to
choose among available options, to discriminate the good from the bad and act
correspondingly. Most importantly, freedom comes with burden. The burden of
freedom is responsibility. When one is free to choose, one is also liable for one‗s
choice. When one choses to act in a particular manner, s/he takes responsibility for
the same action. One who chooses to be virtuous will enjoy good rewards.
Conversely, one who chooses to be vicious will suffer the punishment.

Yet, alternative experiences show that individuals do not entirely determine the
course of affairs of their lives. Meaning that, there is essentially no cause-effect
relationship between virtuous acts and rewards, on the one hand, and vicious acts
and punishment, on the other hand. The implication is that, people do not take
responsibility for either virtuous or vicious; good or bad actions on the basis that
such people are determined (design of superior being), made to act in the very
ways they do. Again, if indeed, I am free, why should I not do or achieve all that I
desire? Why do people regret certain action of theirs in the face of
repercussion? All of thesepose a problem to the human person.

54
1.4.5 Egoism and Altruism
One of the biggest challenges confronting the human person is the question of how
to identify motives of actions. Can the human person perform any action devoid
of self-interest or is it true that at the remotest part of every human action lies the
self-interest? There are those who believe that there can be altruistic actions. In
other words, they believe that one‗s action can, sometimes, be motivated by the
need to help others. For instance, if a very wealthy man decides to go to a
neighbourhood to distribute part of his wealth to the less privileged; it is difficult
to see how such gesture could be seen as egoistic or done for self-interest. Again, if
I am going along the way and suddenly, I run across a distressed individual and I
decided to give a helping hand; how can my action be interpreted as motivated by
self-interest?

Of course, at a cursory glance, one could argue, from the instances we gave
above, that there are altruistic actions. However, there are opposing views which
contend that, if I decide to give arm to a beggar or give helping hand to a
distressed person; there is, at least, one motivation, private to my heart, from
which such action springs. To some, it may be because of religious considerations;
they want to fulfill the injunctions of whatever they believe in, so as to have access
to certain promises in that faith, which means they fear or the need to be pious as
the motive of the action. To others, the reason for their action may not be
because they want to be praised or rewarded by anybody but because they want to
be happy. In this case, happiness is the motivating factor. Therefore, somehow, at
a closer investigation, it could be said that no human action goes without motive
and in as much as the motive is in anyway traceable to the self; it is a self-interest
action; which validates the position that the human person is driven by self-
interest. But, if we are to accept this as basic axiom about the human person, how
can we decipher the genuineness of human actions?

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. By _______, humans charts or determines the course of existence (a)
restriction (b) oppression (c) freedom (d) repression

2. In his Meditations _______ holds the view that mind and body are distinct
substances which cohabits the human space

1.4 Summary
The crises of the human person throw different dimensions and each of these
dimensions stems from the problem of definition of human nature. Definition
poses a problem to the actual understanding of the human person if personhood is
reduced to the capacity for reasoning or consciousness. It is also problematic when
we reduce the entire human person to functionality, activities and actions. Each of
55
 these definitions throws up a charge for a more fundamental approach in the study
of the human person. In this unit, we have tried to highlight the various issues that
are often presented in the effort to properly understand the person. The point was
made that, at the bottom of this conflict, lies the problem of definition and multiple
nature of the person. Unfortunately, rather than dismiss any of these positions as
irrelevant and out of order, the proper attitude might be that each of these
perspectives should combine in defining the person and even provide further
justification for a more fundamental approach to the study of personhood.

1.5 References/Further readings/Web Sources

Descartes, (1968), Discourse on method and the meditations, trans. By F.E.
Sutcliffe,London: Penguin Group.
Podolny, R. (1986). Something Called Nothing, The Physical Vacuum: What Is
It? Trans. From the Russian by Nicholas Weinstein. Moscow: Mir
Publishers.
Stumpf, S. E. (2002). Elements of Philosophy: An Introduction. New York:
McGraw Hill. Warburton, N. (1999). Philosophy: The Basis. London:
Routledge.

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. (c); 2. Descartes

56
UNIT 3: Manifestations of the Crises of the person
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Forms of Determinism as Constraints to Human Freedom
1.3.2 Racial Determinism
1.3.3 Cultural Determinisms
1.3.4 Inter-Cultural Determinism
1.3.5 Intra-cultural determinism
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
The manifestation of identity crises has largely happened under the banner of all
manner of determinisms. In Module 1 units 1 and 2, for instance, Unah linked the
phenomenon of racism and racialism to a form of anthropological studies that
engaged in the description of what humans do rather than who the human person
is; leading to the introduction of racial superiority into the study of personhood.
Some, especially Africans, were classified as ‗primitives‗, and Europeans as
‗civilized‗. This culture of racial superiority infused secretly by the colonialists
promoted a form of identity crises that diminished the self- confidence and self-
esteem of colonized people. This, in turn, brought about the practice of cultural
imposition by the Europeans, on the one hand, and the undermining of the cultures
of colonized Africans, on the other hand; thus, further escalating identity crises.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you should be able to do the following:-
 Identify the link between European expansionist anthropology and socio-
culturalprejudices;
 Able to enumerate the forms of determinism associated with socio-cultural
prejudices;
 Understand and describe how cultural determinism shapes the self-confidence
and self-esteem of the human person.

1.3.1 Forms of Determinism as Constraints on Human Freedom

We have identified freedom, in some of the previous units, as one of the
fundamental characteristics of personhood. In other words, our previous
expositions show that the existence of the human person is characterized by
freedom; yet, such freedom is limited. For instance, Sartre (1969) opined that we
are condemned to be free. Also, taking responsibility for one‗s actions restricts
man‗s freedom. This is in the sense that he is restrained from some actions on
the basis of the consequences that the same actions impose. It suffices to state that,
often, actions of human person have greater tendencies of conforming to social
57
 standards and in relation to consequences of his actions. It is obvious, therefore,
that the human person is not absolutely free; rather, he is free but in chains
[Rousseau, 1952]. It would seem that the attempt to break away from the chains
and fetters that constrain or abort the freedom of the human person is what
manifests, in different forms, as the crises of personhood.

1.3.2 Racial Determinism

In the first two units of module one, it was observed that anthropological studies
when tainted with socio-cultural prejudices do generate identity crisis. Again,
anthropology, when studied from cultural or linguistic dimensions, leaves the
identity of the person confused and introduces racism into anthropology (Cf.
Unah, 2002:135). In that discussion, Unah observed that because man is involved
in so many activities as he goes about his daily rounds, anthropologists do make
the mistake of engaging with the description of these activities and at the end,
leave the question of who the human person is, in general, unanswered.

Consequently, as we noted above, it was through this progression that the act of
racism and racialism became intricately connected to anthropological studies. This
could otherwise be described as the derailment of anthropology. In other words,
anthropology became derailed when it deviated from its core mission of studying
man as man and got engaged in the description of what humans do rather than who
the human person is in general; whether black or white. Against this backdrop,
Unah accuses anthropologists, most especially early European anthropologists, of
being the pioneers of ―expansionism, imperialism and colonialism‖ (p.138) by
the manner they progressed in their anthropological studies. The tendency to use
culture in defining who the human person is leads to a situation in which the
culture of one society is elevated above the one being described. Wherever this
sort of thing happens, the former would be the civilized culture and the latter the
primitive, which they claim can only be saved by people from the superior culture
because the natives lack the capacity to think for themselves (Kanyandago,
2003:35). This way of approaching the study of man introduces crisis, in that, it
leaves us in search of whom the human person really is.

1.3.3 Cultural Determinism

Cultural determinism happens when there is imposition of cultural practices such
as language, religion, mode of dressing and other elements of social practices on a
people. When this imposition happens, it manifests in identity crisis. Questions
as: ―are you still yourself‖ or ―are you now somebody of a different culture‖
continue to nudge the individual. Thus, the narrative of people that suffer
cultural imposition is one of loss of identity, one of loss of self- confidence, and
one of loss of self-esteem. All of these undermine the capacity of the person to
take full control of his or her senses and faculties; and this deprives people from
being able to create value and opportunities for further self-development.

58
1.3.4 Inter-Cultural Determinism
Inter-Cultural determinism is a subset of cultural determinism. It describes a
situation in which one culture parades itself as a civilized, developed and
‗superior‗ culture. Such culture assigns to itself the role of purportedly civilizing
and developing the cultures of the host communities. This is a claim to cultural
determinism. And the situation whereby people from imperial culture claim
superiority generates crisis of its own and it manifests in ways that are most times
inhuman to the people of the host cultures such as the practice of slavery which
dehumanizes persons that are traded as slaves. Also, it leads to racial arrogance
that one is in a position, by virtue of cultural superiority to lord it over others. It
makes the imperial culture to ride roughshod over host cultures. This happened in
the colonial experiences of many African nations, Nigeria inclusive. The European
culture now determines the way African cultures should go. In some cases, it took
the form of assimilation or absorption of the host cultures. It makes them to
imbibe the ethos of the new culture. The people of the host cultures who have been
absorbed react to these in many different ways. When they realize that they
can neither grow their own culture nor be completely accepted in the
absorbing, assimilating, colonizing imperial culture, they take recourse to violent
protest, brigandage and have been largely responsible for the upsurge in
insurgency in many post-colonial societies. It also manifests in nationalism, in the
attempt to return to the native culture.

As the people of the host cultures lose their cultural values and identity to the
alien, colonizing culture, there is always loss of rights; loss of freedom; the
realization of which sparks off protests for a return to original culture and the
jettisoning of the alien culture. These manifestations keep generating crises in
different communities. The presence of the people of the colonizing cultures
constitutes themselves into leaches and parasites on the host cultures to keep the
people perpetually disadvantaged. It leads to infringement of fundamental human
rights; freedoms. And the people colonized have not been allowed to take
charge of their destiny because they are still being pestered and their lifeways
determined by the people of the colonizing culture.

1.3.5 Intra-Cultural Determinism

Within individual African cultures, you find situations where community norms
and traditions impose on the right of individuals; depriving them of their
uniqueness and identities. This narrative is one that also often brews crisis
because, often times, especially, where these cultures are not transforming their
ways to allow for civilized progress. If these cultures are embracing positive
changes, it will be easy for individuals to key in with the norms and ethos of the
cultures. But when the cultures are neither growing nor transforming their ways, it
leaves room for rejections and these rejections manifest in crisis while the
insistence that individuals must bow to the dictates of culture is cultural

59
 determinism. That is that, your culture must define you as a person.

Other manifestations of crisis generated by cultural determinism include: dissent,

protest, militancy, rebellion, insurgency et cetera. These are modes of reacting
against attempts by culture and tradition to abort or truncate the uniqueness of the
individual to assault personhood. But can individuals fully, completely sustain
individual uniqueness, self-identity without connecting with the other identities? Is
it not in creating a link or a connection between individuals in a socio-cultural
environment that cultural norms find expressions? If this is the case, is the project
of personhood devoid of socio-cultural interactions really feasible? This is also a
critique of the project of personhood.

The point being made is that the individual must be able to synchronize his
aspirations; his rights with the overall scheme of the socio-cultural environment in
which he seeks to pursue his enlighten self-interest. In other words, while the
concerns about crises of personhood are genuine; individuals will continue to be
defined, one way or the other, by the socio-cultural environment in which they
live. If individuals connect properly with the demands of culture, the crises of
personal identity will reduce to the barest minimum. It is when individuals see a
dichotomy between their uniqueness as opposed to normative prescriptions for
the health of society that identity crisis heightens. However, this does not argue
the case that basic rights that preserve individual uniqueness should be trampled
upon.

The situation arises where the people of African cultures contest and contend what
the culture demands of them. Cases of burial rites or funeral obsequies, and other
cultural practices that individuals within the culture think override their
uniqueness, or their self-identity abound. These situations create intra-group
tensions which is more or less another form of one‗s own cultural determinism
that undermines personhood.

Self-Assessment
1. _______ determinism happens when there is imposition of cultural
practices such as language, religion, mode of dressing and other elements of
social practices on a people.

2. The European culture now determines the way African cultures should go
(a) False (b) True

1.4 Summary
Looking through the lines of most anthropological accounts of the human person,
the phenomenon of racism and ethnic profiling easily resonates. Anthropology

60
 assumes this dangerous dimension when it is made to engage with what the human
persons do and what they fail to do. This is how the study of personhood assumed
racial dimension most especially in the African continent. These activities brewed
cultural superiority for Europeans, on the one hand, and inferiority complex for the
Africans; which in the ended resulted in expansionist policies and colonialism.
Thus, the feeling that certain group of people is more endowed with the gift of
personhood and as such, must show others the way to civility, was an unfortunate
dimension of anthropological development that has over time driven the human
society into all forms of hatred and xenophobic feelings among one another. All of
these happen at both inter-cultural and intra- cultural levels; which, in the end,
found expression in identity crises. This is a testimony that each of the various
theories of personhood has not adequately captured the fundamental nature of the
human person. This unit has been able to establish a link between European
expansionist anthropologists and the phenomenon of cultural prejudice. In doing
so, it identified forms of determinisms associated with such phenomenon. It
argued that the human person is conditioned by all forms of determinisms and
responds to them accordingly. The underlying cause of the crises of the person,
we noted, is due to a derailment in the anthropological mission. We said that it
was this derailment of mission that led to the events of cultural comparison; the
end of which was often to see which people were civilized and which were
barbaric. This development has been decried as an unfortunate happenstance in the
history of anthropological studies which requires a more fundamental philosophy
of personhood to address.

1.5 References/Further Reading

Kanyandago, P. (2003). ―Rejection of the African Humanity: Searching
for Cultural Reappropriation‖, in Muyiwa Falaiye (ed.) African Spirit and
Black Nationalism: A Discourse in African and Afro American Studies,
Lagos: Foresight Press.
Rousseau, J.J (1952). ―The Social Contract‖ G.D .H Cole (trans.) in Great Books
of the Western World. M. M. Hutchin (ed.) USA: William Benton,
Encyclopedia Britannica.
Sartre, J.P (1969) Being and Nothingness, London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.
Unah, J.I. (2002). Anthropology and Philosophical Anthropology. In Philosophy,
Society and Anthropology, Jim I. Unah (ed), Lagos: Fadec Publishers.

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. Cultural; 2. (b)

61
UNIT 4: A Fundamental Ontology of the Human Person
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Identifying the difference between Anthropology, Philosophical Anthropology
andFundamental Ontology
1.3.2 Fundamental Ontology of the Human Person
1.3.3 The Basic Traits of Human Being
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
The point that has been stressed in our discussion of the various ways different
cultures and anthropologists tried to present man is that the result of their efforts
appears to have thrown confusion into the meaning of the human person. This is
because, rather than present the human person as such, individual persons with
colour, culture, activities and race were being discussed and all of these leave us in
further confusion about who the human person is. The first question it raises is;
how can the edifice of meaning of the human person be erected so as to douse the
tension and crises generated by the previous efforts made at defining personhood?
How can we define the human personality that will be colour, race, activity,
culture and location neutral?

1.2 Learning Outcomes

At the end of this study unit, you should be able to achieve the following:-
 Able to know the difference between Anthropology, Philosophical
Anthropologyand Fundamental Ontology of the Human Person
 Able to appreciate the uniqueness of Fundamental Ontology
 Able to know and identify the universal traits of personhood

1.3.1 Identifying the difference between Anthropology, Philosophical

Anthropology and Fundamental Ontology
In the previous discussions, it has been said many times that anthropology is the
study of man. But in studying man early European anthropologists spent all their
time and effort in describing particular characteristics or traits of human beings
and their activities, culture, life ways and the differences between humans and
their cultures. In doing so, anthropologists went about describing which culture is
superior and which culture is inferior; which human groups are refined and which
are primitive and unrefined, and which one should refine the other. By taking this
route in the study of man, European anthropologists introduced the dangerous
practice of imposing one culture on another; imposing European culture on
African culture, and using this as an excuse to colonize and dominate African

62
 societies and forcing different peoples to join political unions that they could not
understand; to realize their expansionist and exploitative ambition; especially in
the prosecution of slavery and slave trade, which devastated and impoverished
Africa of its human resource.

This initial European plot to impose their life ways on Africans and the practice of
slave trade, are the root causes of the identity crises afflicting Africans and their
inability to muster the will to take full charge of their own affairs. In view of this
development, some concerned human beings (Europeans inclusive) began to
worry that things are wrong, and thus began crusade or campaign against slavery
and slave trade. But this was preceded by the decision to broaden the scope and
reduce or remove the discriminatory elements in the study of the human person
by introducing universal philosophical characteristics of man thus, this was how
philosophical anthropology developed what it tries to achieve is to remove the
racial element from the study of man by injecting the universal characteristics of
man into anthropological studies. From here, philosophers began to identify the
universal traits of humanity and on the basis on which to construct the doctrine of
the universal brotherhood of all men.

However, each philosophical anthropologist identifies just one or two of the

universal traits of humans. This again introduced another form of contestation as
to which of the universal traits identify by the philosophers is prior. This
developme.t within the rank of philosophical anthropology shows that there is still
a limited understanding of human nature. It is on account of the limitations of
philosophical anthropology that there evolved the desire to create or discover a
more fundament. This fundamental science is human ontology or more
popularly, the ontology of the human person.

Now, what is human ontology or fundamental ontology offering that the earlier
thinkers (anthropologists and philosophical anthropologists) did not offer? What is
fundamental ontology bringing to the table of human personality? What
fundamental ontology brings to the table of human personality discourse is all the
basic existential traits that belong to human nature woefully omitted by previous
studies of human personality (Unah, 2016). One concrete philosophy that clearly,
unambiguously, presented the universal traits of man compressively, is the
philosophy of Martin Heidegger; which is also to be found in the works of other
existential ontologists. But his own is by far, the most comprehensive: which he
accomplished in the analysis of Dasein or in the Fundamental Ontology of the
Human Person.

1.3.2 Fundamental Ontology of the Human Person

Fundamental ontology means the metaphysics of the human person. The
metaphysics of human being is one that takes root in the philosophy of Being. As a

63
matter of fact, ontology, strictly speaking, is the theory, study, interrogation or
investigation of Being or what it means for something to be at all. For instance, the
question of Being does not bother about the being of white person, the being of
black person, the being of cat, horse, house, student, teacher, et cetera; but what it
takes for all these to be at all. In the case of the human person, it is interested in
knowing what it takes for the human person to be at all. The question of what it
means to be is fundamental to any study of personhood.

It was Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher, in his work Being and Time that
drew attention to the need for us to return to the question of Being or what it takes
for something to be at all. Accordingly, he devoted his interest in Being itself and
not individual beings. Being itself is the source or ground of the being of all
individual beings and it manifests itself in them (Heidegger, 1962a: 231).
Heidegger seemed discontented with the way the question of Being had been
treated. Since the previous efforts made by other philosophers of Being at
discussing being were seen by Heidegger to be inadequate and confusing, he
proposed a new model.

Heidegger observed that there is a difference between Being itself and other
beings. This difference according to him has been overlooked and forgotten
throughout the history of western ontology. ―On the basis of Greek‗s initial
contribution towards an interpretation on Being, a dogma has been developed
which not only declares the question about the meaning of Being to be
superfluous, but sanctions its complete neglect‖ (Ibid, p.21).

He observed that the unwarranted application of the categories by the Greek

philosophers is largely responsible for the confusion and crises of Being. It is this
confusion between Being itself and the particular instances of Being as exemplified
in regional ontologies that has resulted in interpretations of reality variously as;
will to power, subjectivity, mind or matter. We often assume that being is not a
hard concept because it appears in our everyday language and in all our
transactions; hence it is a common knowledge. According to Heidegger, it was this
preliminary assumption about Being that perpetually drove its true understanding
into obliviousness, into hiding.

Thus, for him, Being becomes elusive to understanding when we assume that it is
a common knowledge and universal, when we think that it is not definable and we
think that everybody knows it and as such, does not need further definition (Ibid).
When we peddle these kinds of presuppositions about Being, it makes the
understanding of Being herculean, a difficult task. According to Heidegger, such
was the preoccupation of the Greek interpretations which ended up introducing
confusion into the domain of Being. As further observed by Unah, ―for until the
question of the meaning of Being has been sufficiently clarified and answered, no

64
adequate interpretation and grounding of metaphysics can hold sway‖ (Unah,
1997: 102). Consequently, Heidegger reasoned that if indeed the question of
Being is fundamental and prior, we must revisit it and lay a fresh foundation for its
proper understanding by laying bare structures that belong to Being in general
(Heidegger, 1962a:24). He maintained that the fundamental question about Being
which all other previous thinkers have failed to grasp, is ―the unearthing of the
deep meaning of Sein‖ (Iroegbu, 1995:213). But, again, how do we now proceed
with the formulation of the question of the meaning of Being? For Heidegger,
therefore, we have to begin by clarifying what it means for something to be at all.
In his view, the question of what it means to be at all is the most fundamental of
all questions.

In trying to question what belongs to Being in general, we at the same time admit
that there is something to be questioned (Unah, 1997:106). In other words, both
the questioning and that which is questioned occur simultaneously, at the same
time. This is another way of saying that every questioning presupposes a question
of something which we expect an answer to. Thus, enquiry implies a behaviour of
enquirer which is an entity with a definite character. What Heidegger consistently
maintained is that it may not be possible for us to know what Being is in the
proper sense of it; but that we are at advantage in seeking to know because we
already have a faint idea of what is it that we seek to know which appears elusive
to us. ―Thus, Heidegger thinks that the first standard procedure of interrogating the
Being-process is the recognition of the fact that we live within a vague average
imprecise understanding of Being‖ (Ibid, p.108).

So, for Heidegger, what we often seek to know when we raise the question of
Being is not this being or that being but the Being of entities which itself is not an
entity. Since there are many entities which manifest being, we have to discern
which of these entities stands in a vantage position to explain Being. We have to
map out which access point to being among the variety of entities best explains
Being. According to Heidegger, looking at all the characteristics of the various
entities, we ourselves (human beings) appear to have acquired the right character
to explain Being. This is because it is through us that the question ―what is
Being?‖ is raised. Thus, he writes:
This entity which each of us is himself and which
include inquiring as one of the possibilities of its
Being, we shall denote by the term ―Dasein‖. If we are
to formulate our question explicitly and transparently,
we must first give a proper explanation of an entity
(Dasein) with regard to its Being (Heidegger,
1962a:27).

What Heidegger means above is that, no other entity has the privileged position to

65
explain Being except that entity whose mode of existence encapsulates Being.
That entity, he says, is Dasein or the human being. Differently stated by Iroegbu:
The point-de-depart of this proper ontology is for,
Heidegger, fundamental Ontology; the investigation of
the human being, otherwise called the Dasein, who
posits the question of being, and who is the only locus
in which the being question can be investigated
(Iroegbu, 1995:213-214).

To understand the meaning of Being, we have to access it through that entity

whose being is ontico-ontologically prior. ―This is because, according to
Heidegger, in the question of seeking an understanding of Being through the
being of man, one is talking not simply of deducing one concept from another
higher or lower, but of concrete ways of investigating‖ (Unah, 1997:113).
Heidegger was determined to give metaphysics (ontology) a strong foundation.

Heidegger saw that every field of study presupposes metaphysics, presupposes

being but there is a problem of foundation in terms of grounding. Accordingly,
due to this lack of foundation, it has become difficult to conceptualize Being and
it is the duty of the ontological researcher to provide a metaphysical foundation for
grounding Being. He saw this task of foundation as an embodiment of the
existential analysis of Dasein which means the being of man. Dasein of all entities
can raise the question of essential thought. It is only Dasein that can raise the
question of ultimate reality, and only Dasein that can realize the self-reflective
consciousness of the human condition.

On this task of laying a solid foundation for metaphysics (ontology), Heidegger

observes as follows:
 The problem of ontology is the problem of fundamental ontology.
 Fundamental ontology means the ontological analytic of man‗s finite essence
which should prepare the foundation for metaphysics which belongs to human
nature in general.
 Fundamental ontology means that the metaphysics of human Dasein is
necessary if metaphysics in general is to be possible.
 Kant‗s critique of Pure Reason is preliminary stage in the laying of foundation
of metaphysics (Heidegger, 1962b:3-4).

Laying a solid foundation requires a concrete plan which is part of the creative
process. This vision is the realm of nothingness. The foundation of metaphysics in
this context must be located in fundamental ontology. It is here that all other things
can take their root. This scheme, because of its crucial nature, must be sought in
the essential analytic of Dasein (the human person). To this end, he thinks that
bringing man‗s thinking back to its original source is the mission of fundamental

66
 ontology.

Therefore, he believes strongly that there is an intricate connection between the

Being process and human being and this is necessary in understanding Being. This
is because, when we want to conceptualize Being, we often begin with regional
entities in order to get to their underlying first principles (Being). Thus, Heidegger
feels that since out of all the entities which constitute Being, we ourselves are one
of such, it would be better we begin the interrogation of Being through that entity
that already has a vague idea of Being because it is he alone that enjoys this
privilege. Here comes the link between Being and human being.

1.3.3 The Basic Traits of Human Being

The basic traits are facticity, existentiality (transcendence) and fallenness
(forfeiture). Forfeiture is a basic characteristic of a human being. It is the natural
tendency of all human persons to want to forget the self in pursuit of the not too
relevant (Nwigwe, 2002:254). Human reality is grounded in these characteristics.
Every human being has a past, a history, where he is coming from or what has
been about him. There is no one without a past. Every human being exists also in
the present which is the pivot of all his activities; looking back and looking
forward and immediate activity. So, the past and the future are intertwined in the
present activity of human being. No moment is severed in isolation and this is
human reality- that happens to all humans. In this analysis, past, future and
present are mingled together. There is no human doing that is not a mixture of
these elements of man.

Although, in unguarded moments, human being forgets to make present, forgets to

do what he should be doing. That also is part of human existential nature and it is
called fallenness (forfeiture) or more technically, the self, abandoning it-self.
When the self abandons itself, to what does it abandon it? It abandons it to
distractions, to the paying of attention to what people say or do, to not making
present, to not doing what one should be doing. This is described as fallenness or
inauthenticity. The basic trait of existentiality portrays human being as always
making plans, always projecting (Unah, 2016:146-147). By this, human life is
carried on in transcendence; human life is a life of transcendence, reaching out
beyond oneself. Every human being is involved in the project of making plans,
dreaming, looking ahead. This trait is associated with authenticity because of its
nature. Its nature is to propel the human being from one state to another. Whether
you are short or tall, civilized or primitive, these events will happen to you. Apart
from these basic traits, there are other traits, everyone of which is mixed up with
human chemistry, everyone of which is intertwine with the structure of existence.
Other elementary trait like boredom, anxiety, conscience, guilt, dread, death et
cetera, happens to all humans. Language too is a basic human trait which you find
in every human, even in the dumb. The essence of language is communication; to

67
 pass thoughts to others, so, the dumb is not only capable of speech; they are
involved in a special kind of speech – sign language. There is no human that the
capacity for language is not part of his or her personhood. Also, death is in the
structure of human existence; one begins to dies the very moment of birth.

Without going into sordid details, this fundamental ontological understanding of

man protects all humans from harm. A person in the vegetative state and the
physically challenged are recognized by this understanding of human nature. A
vegetative person still retains an element of personality because he is capable of
death; at that very moment, his personhood knock at the door, emphasizing his
personality. This analysis of human nature prevents anyone from denying any
class of human beings personhood or personality.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. _______is the natural tendency of all human persons to want to forget the
self in pursuit of the not too relevant (a) facticity (b) forfeiture (c)
authenticity (d) angst

2. For Heidegger, it is only ______ who can raise the question of ultimate
reality

1.4 Summary
This unit began with the discussion of the difference between philosophical
anthropology and fundamental ontology. Anthropology studies man in a
fragmented manner with all its attendant problems of generating identity crisis,
racism, and tendency to dominate others. Philosophical anthropology‗s
introduction of universal traits into the study of human personality did not fully
overcome the parochialism of early anthropological science. The contest among
philosophers regarding particular characteristics is higher or superior to the other
took the matter of personal identity back to slaughter slag of empirical
anthropology. Fundamental ontology takes man back to his root, to his basic
essence. This basic essence is found in the recognition of all basic universal traits
as constituting personality. Ontology developed as the universal science of man;
nondiscriminatory, non-derogatory aspects of man.

The inquiry regarding the constitution of personhood took us from anthropology

through philosophical anthropology to fundamental ontology. The first two
attempts at understanding man ended up creating the problem of crisis of personal
identity and even group identity as some group were recognized as superior than
other and so fail to establish a universal science of man. Fundamental ontology
came to the rescue and demonstrated that personhood is possible for all humans
and that the practice of cultural superiority and the practice of domination are

68
 antithetical to the humble true nature of man. We demonstrate this by going
beyond the individual man to the characteristics that endow us with the universal
nature of man. Thus, establishing that the brotherhood of all men does not reside
in culture, kinship, geography etc. but on those basic existential characteristics
that inhere in all humans, without exception.

1.5 Summary/Further Readings/Web Sources

Iroegbu, P. (1995). Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy, Owerri: International
Universities Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962a), Being and Time, trans. John Macquarie & Edward
Robinson, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Heidegger, M. (1962b), Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, Bloomington and
London: Indiana University Press.
Nwigwe, B.E. (2002). Martin Heidegger‗s Philosophical Anthropology and
Ontology. In Philosophy, Society and Anthropology, Jim I. Unah (ed),
Lagos: Fadec Publishers
Unah, J.I. (1997). Heidegger: Through Kant to Fundamental Ontology, Ibadan:
Hope Publications
Unah, J.I. (2016). On Being: Discourse on the Ontology of Human Being,
Lagos: Foresight Press.

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. (b); 2. Dasein

69
UNIT 5: The Goal of a Fundamental Philosophy of the Person
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Analysis of the Structure of Thought
1.3.2 The Benefits of Understanding the Structure of Thought
1.3.3 Highlights of the Goals of Fundamental Philosophy
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
The fundamental philosophy of the person is also called the ontology of the
human person. It is the analysis of the structure of human thought; which is the
source of the objective factor, of objective experience. It is the phenomenological
description of what belongs to thought in general; not for particular specialties or a
theory of knowledge. It is this that accounts for the dynamism and vastness of
existence in general. The simple goal of fundamental philosophy of the human
person is to lay down the ground of what basically belongs to all human persons
irrespective of where they are found. By so doing, it does not seek to describe the
individual and cultural human person with their baggage of racial characteristics
and prejudices. Instead, it is more interested in the idea of the human person as
such. This is derived from the thinking that the idea of the human person takes
priority over any particular instantiation of it. When we properly understand what
it means for a person to be, what it is that makes human entities privileged beings;
it is then that the value, respect and dignity of personhood would be adequately
restored and appreciated.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you should be able to know the following:-
 How Thought is Structured
 How to describe the structure of Human Thought
 How to articulate the goals and benefits of Fundamental Philosophy of Man

1.3.1 Analysis of the Structure of Thought

Fundamental ontology involves the study of the source of the objective factor; that
is, how human is constituted. The first element in the structure of thought is
transcendence. Transcendence is the structural unity between thought and
intuition; that is the unity between the intellect [thought] and intuition. So, you
have thought and you have intuition. For thought to be fully accomplished, there
has to be a fusion between it [thought] and intuition. Transcendence is the
movement that takes place between thought and intuition. Transcendence is the
fusion of thought and intuition. Intuition here means sensuous intuition. The
intellect is thought or pure reason. So, we have three names for one item in the
70
 structure, namely intellect, thought and pure reason.

Thought or intellect or pure reason always moves towards intuition for

information to process into knowledge or cognition. By the same token, intuition
always orients itself towards thought for its own activity to be concluded. The task
of intuition is to deposit information in a central area occupied by the pure
productive imagination. The task of the pure imagination is to generate ideas that
the intellect uses to process information deposited by intuition.

Thus, there is a relational dependence of thought on intuition, and vice versa.

There can be no knowledge of anything if this relational dependence or
cooperation does not happen. That is why Kant could assert that ‗Thought without
content is empty, intuition without concept is blind‗ (Kant, 1922: 40). Concepts
are created by the mind through the activities of the intellect and the imagination.
It is these concepts that the mind uses to process sense data intuited by the sensory
organs of smell, touch, taste, hearing, and sight. Knowledge production can only
happen when the scenarios described above are carried out by thought and
intuition. Communication of intellectual decision on the sense data of intuition is
the last stage in knowledge production.

There is, however, a form of knowledge that is not dependent on sense experience;
but which merely arises from experience. This is the type of knowledge that Kant
calls synthetic a priori knowledge. It is because of this that we have the different
types of concepts, such as the pure concepts of the understanding and empirical
concepts for the analysis of sense information. For, Instance, the knowledge of
God, freedom, democracy, pure mathematics, et cetera, do not come from the
sense experience; even though they arise from experience. What is of interest here
is that this analysis makes it easier to understand man‗s priority in the scheme of
things, and the unique endowment of reason which we use in playing the politics
of assigning meaning to the world. The benefits of this knowledge and
understanding about the boundless capacities and capabilities of human thought
are unquantifiable, as we shall demonstrate in the next unit.

1.3.2 The Benefits of Understanding the Structure of Thought

The analysis of thought is the introductory part to a full-fledged fundamental
ontology of the human person who is involved in knowledge production, be it that
of anthropology, philosophical anthropology, or even ontology. So, an
understanding of the structure of thought or how thought happens is expressed in
these words:-
Philosophy of man is the study of the source of the
objectivity factor. It is the study of what makes
objective experience in general possible. Ontology of
man is the study of what renders experience of any

71
 kind possible. It is an enquiry into the metaphysical
constitution of human life which provides the basis for
the understanding of Being itself or Reality in
general… Philosophy of man inquiries into how we
form notions, images, ideas, concepts and how these
notions, images, ideas and concepts are applied to
things; how they translate into words in form of
communication or discourse and how understanding of
what is communicated actually takes place. It is about
how we generate ideas and concepts to affect
experience or things in the world. The metaphysics of
man celebrates the fact that human reality is an
inexhaustible reservoir of meanings and can
spontaneously bring about any desired state of affair
(Unah, 2006: 44-45).

From the foregoing, it is evident that the fundamental philosophy of man is the
metaphysics of man which accounts for the vastness of human knowledge and
human reality. The above quotation leads us to the goal of the fundamental
philosophy of the person.

1.3.3 Highlights of the Goals of a Fundamental Philosophy of Man

The goals include but are not limited to:
 Fostering the conditions of mutual understanding amongst identities for mutual
prosperityand peaceful coexistence.
 Teaching the human mind to be accommodating through the process of finite
transcendence.
 Promoting nondiscriminatory descriptions of the human person.
 Describing human being as having the capacity to transcend finite existences.
 Developing and reorienting the mind of the human person against what
Soyinka identified as ―structured ignorance‖ (1991) and what Unah
described as the ―tribal mindset‖ (2006:19).
 Ameliorating situations of crises of the human person and human societies and
averting global disaster.
 Developing the human mind with the capacity for objectivity and neutrality in
the description of entities.
 Teaching humans about how the task of assigning meaning to things, to the
world, is possible.
 Investigating how we form notions, images, ideas, and concepts and how they
are applied to things.
 Generating ideas and concepts to affect experience and add value to the world;
 Empowering the mind of the human person to respond effectively to crises;
through tolerance, peaceful coexistence, and mutual understanding.

72
 Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Communication of intellectual decision on the sense data of _______ is the
last stage in knowledge production (a) intuition (b) relaxation (c) restriction
(d) meditation

2. Transcendence is the structural unity between thought and intuition; that is

the unity between the intellect [thought] and ______ (a) intuition (b)
relaxation (c) restriction (d) meditation

1.4 Summary
This module identified the crises of the human person from different perspectives:
physical; in terms of existential and social facts; non-physical, psychological,
cognitive, imaginative, and transcendental. It acknowledged that events, situations,
experiences constantly change which also leads to change in human thoughts and
perceptions. This situation accounts for the variations, inconsistencies and
contradictions in human cognitions. The aftermath of these variations,
inconsistencies and contradictions is the crises of the human person. However, the
fundamental philosophy of the human person empowers and educates the mind
beyond particular and restricted approaches to existential and social facts. The
outcome of this undertaking is the emergence of a generation of thinkers that
entertains an all-round picture of the world which promotes peaceful coexistence;
mutual understanding, and efficient crises moderated world order. This unit began
with the analysis of human thought; which is structured into the Intellect or pure
reason, the imagination, and sensuous intuition which cooperate with each other
to produce a complete act of Knowledge. Understanding the structure of thought
and how the intellect has the role of superintending and processing knowledge
from sense information from the world of sensible objects enables us to know
how enormously we are endowed with reason to work out our problems and
destiny in the world. The highlights of the goals of fundamental ontology
demonstrate this eloquently.

1.5 References/further readings/Web Sources

Brivio, C. (1980). The Human Being: When Philosophy Meets History Miki
Kiyoshi, Watsuji Tetsurō and Their Quest for a New Ningen, available @
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13835/Proefschrift.
pdf?sequence=5
Kant, I. (1922). Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan and Co Limited.
Podolny, R. (1986). Something Called Nothing, The Physical Vacuum: What is
it? Trans. From the Russian by Nichola. Moscow: Mir Publishers.
Unah, J. (2016). On Being: Discourse on The Ontology of Human Being. Lagos:
Foresight Press. Unah, J. (2006). Even Nothing is Something. Lagos:
University of Lagos Press.
73
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE
1. (a); 2. (a)

End of Module Exercises (A)

1. It is said that ___________ enables human being to think clearly about anything, take
positions, draw conclusions and make judgments even on issues that may not secure
general consensus

2. Descartes is credited to have introduced what he called dualistic _________

3. Inter-Cultural determinism is a subset of _________ determinism (a) Social (b)

Cultural (c) Biological (d) Genetic

4. Fundamental ontology means the metaphysics of the __________

5. Fundamental ontology involves the study of the source of the _________ factor (a)
subjective (b) objective (c) Additive (d) Oriental

End of Module Exercises (B)

1. The sources of the crises of the human person include the following except?
a. Human nature
b. Ambivalence
c. Fundamental ontology
d. Identity

2. The crises of the human person are traceable to the following except man‗s
a. Thought pattern
b. Perception
c. Orientation
d. Insanity

3. The crises of the human person evolve out the following except ….?
a. Contradictions
b. Variations
c. Interpretations
d. Negativities

4. The crises of the human person developed by the inability of an individual to…
a. Pray
b. Express one‗s will

74
c. Reconcile different opinions
d. Love

5. The crises of the human person manifest …

a. Human nature
b. Divine nature
c. Sinful nature
d. Evil nature

6. The crises of the person depends on some dual identity except

a. Physical and non-physical
b. Freedom and determinist
c. Mind and body
d. Prayer and worship

7. A fundamental dimension of the human person is …?

a. Identity crises
b. Gender crisis
c. Vocation crisis
d. Financial crisis

8. The crises of the human person will most likely persist except we apply …?
a. Sledgehammer on troublemakers
b. Fundamental ontology of the human person
c. Restraints
d. Racial profiling of those causing the crises

9. The crises of the human person are the manifestations of the following except….?
a. Peace in the world
b. Human ambivalence
c. Human nature and irreconcilable contradictions
d. Mind-Body problem

10. Consequences of the crises of the human person include the following except?
a. Hatred
b. Order
c. Disorder
d. Violence

11. To solve the crises of the human person, we have to return to?
a. Dogmatism
b. Autocracy
c. Religion

75
d. Essential traits of the human being

12. The crises of the human person is?

a. Entirely physical
b. Entirely non-physical
c. Both physical and non-physical
d. Neither physical nor spiritual

13. The crisis of the human person can be resolved by?

a. True love
b. Total obedience
c. Fasting and prayer
d. Phenomenological understanding of man
14. The crises of the human person are associated with?
a. Human nature
b. Human identity
c. Human contingency
d. All of the above

15. The crises in Anthropological studies will persist so long as?

a. Its contents remain centered on what people do or what they fail to do
b. Emphasis on fundamental ontology continues to linger
c. Human life and social order remain peaceful
d. Philosophers are alive to duty

16 The goals of fundamental philosophy of the person include the following except?
a. Promote nondiscriminatory descriptions of the human person
b. To foster the conditions of mutual understanding among entities
c. To create more divisions among anthropologists and thinkers
d. Develop the human mind with the capacity for objectivity and neutrality

17. The task of pure imagination is to?

a. Generate ideas with which the intellect uses to process information
b. Dream dreams
c. Imagine the future
d. Make predictions

18 Kant said that ―thought without content is empty and intuition without concept is…?
a. Prophetic
b. Full
c. Blind
d. Pure

76
19 The fundamental philosophy of the person…?
a. Studies human being
b. Examines the essential traits of human beings
c. Recreation of human being
d. The art of human being

20 The fundamental philosophy of the person provides…?

a. Holistic understanding of human person
b. A partial understanding of human person
c. A religious understanding of human person
d. An anthropological understanding of human person

21 The fundamental philosophy of the person entails

a. Conversion of the human being in their belief system
b. Changing of the will
c. Orienting the mind to open up without presuppositions and discriminations
d. Formation of conscience

22 The fundamental philosophy of man requires

a. Phenomenological comportment
b. Social conformity
c. Religious diversity
d. Political autonomy

23 The fundamental philosophy of man demands phenomenological comportment in

order to
a. Understand the white race to be superior to the black race
b. Understand the black race to be inferior to the white race
c. Understand how Europeans colonized non-Europeans
d. Understand what belongs to the human person in general, regardless.

24 The fundamental philosophy of man involves

a. Human transcendence
b. Narrating what human persons do or fail to do
c. Racial profiling
d. Cultural prejudices

25 Transcendental exercises involve

a. Going beyond
b. Perception
c. Dreaming
d. Flashback

77
26 The fundamental philosophy of person implies that
a. Man is a cultural animal
b. Philosophy is related to person
c. Both man and philosophy are not fundamental
d. To understand the human person, one must transcend the particulars.

27 The fundamental philosophy of man aims at

a. Make human being moral
b. Make human being holy
c. Make human being loving
d. Grounding the study of man on certain essential traits

28 The fundamental philosophy of person belongs to an area of philosophy known as

a. Epistemology
b. Ontology
c. Ethics
d. Logic

29 The fundamental philosophy of person is a response to

a. The crises of human person
b. The prayer of human person
c. The frailty of human person
d. The sinfulness of human person

30 The fundamental philosophy of the person requires certain temperament

a. Aggression
b. Prejudice
c. Precision
d. Patience

31 The fundamental philosophy of person is relevant to the understanding of

a. Personhood in its universal sense.
b. The being of animals
c. The being of living things
d. The being of inanimate objects

32 The fundamental philosophy of person is quintessential to man‗s

a. True essence
b. Imperial superiority
c. Absolute dogmatism
d. Inferiority complex

33 The fundamental philosophy of the human person is

78
a. The metaphysics of man
b. Man as a religious being
c. Man as a political animal
d. Man as a money-making animal

79
MODULE THREE [3]
Unit1: Plato‘s Philosophical Anthropology
Unit 2: Jean-Paul Sartre‘s Philosophical Anthropology
Unit 3: Karl Marx‘s Philosophical Anthropology

80
Unit 1: Plato’s Philosophical Anthropology
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Plato‘s Philosophy of Education
1.3.1 Plato‘s Thoughts on Philosophical Anthropology
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
In this unit, we are going to consider the ways that the ancient Greek scholar, Plato
considered the nature of man from the philosophical perspective. This unit is
going to approach this topic from the perspective of Plato‘s thoughts on education
before teasing the philosophical anthropology present therein.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

At the end of this unit, the students ought to be able to:
 Understand Plato beyond his epistemology and metaphysics;
 Understand the idea on education by Plato;
 Be able to relate his ideas with human nature; and
 Understand what is meant by Plato‘s philosophical anthropology

1.3.1 Plato’s Philosophy of Education

In this section, our focus would be on the philosophy of education of Plato. We
shall by the time we begin to look at this aspect of his philosophy see the
correlation between his metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of education.

Modern educational authors have tried to press Plato's ideas on the structure and
sequence of education into our modern categories of elementary, secondary, and
higher schooling. This is difficult for two reasons; first, because of the general
differences between Greek and modern civilization, which do not allow an easy
transfer of terms; secondly, because Plato himself lays much more value on the
spirit than on the external organisation of education.

From birth to about six years of age, a child's body and healthy habits have to be
developed. During the first three years of life, sanitary nursing is most important.
From three to six, sports, games, plays, and songs are the best means of good
breeding. In this period also, the basis for courage and self-discipline has to be laid
by exposing the child to pleasure and pain, and the basis for reverence for tradition
by inculcation of the elements of the great national myths. At the age of six, a
child should begin a more formal education. Boys and girls, too, should receive
their initial military training in the form of gymnastics, practised with a view

81
towards war. Simple and dignified music, conducive to the cultivation of noble
emotions, ought to prepare them to combine, in their later life, the courage of the
warrior with the refined enjoyment of peace (Yogendra;2002:41).

The highest good ... is neither war nor civil strife—which things, we should pray
rather to be saved from—but peace one with another and friendly feeling. The
insistence on fullness of experience serves as guiding principle also for the higher
stages of Plato's scheme of education. After the first years of adolescence,
intellectual studies are interrupted in favour of intensive physical training and
military service. They require four years, and only then may the young man, now
at the age of twenty, return to theoretical studies, provided he has excelled among
his comrades. He is now sufficiently matured to enter upon the first level of higher
education.

For the Higher education period there is a different way. A regular school life
begins for both boys and girls, controlled by a "law-warden," a director of
education. Reading, writing, and the rudiments of mathematics have to be taught.
Gymnasia and schools, open to all, ought to be built; teachers ought to be
appointed. Plato wishes that all the means of education be concentrated
systematically toward bringing about a full and mature personality. In this process,
mere guidance and information, as well as mere conditioning and habituation,
would fail. They are effective in the pursuit of the virtues of temperance and
courage, but a person endowed with these qualities may still be narrow,
unpleasant, and perhaps socially dangerous unless he possesses also the virtues of
wisdom and justice. All these virtues must be molded into an organic whole. Plato
has, thus, outlined a number of periods for systematic training and instruction
according to the stages of development of life (Yogendra;2002:42).

During infancy which extends from birth to three years, the child is to be properly
nourished and is to be saved from pain and pleasure as far as possible. According
to Plato, this period extending from three to six years of age is the most important
part of education. The education during this period should consist of play, fairy
tales, mother goose, and simple recreations. This period should begin at six and go
up to thirteen. Boys and girls should be housed in separate state dormitories. Plato
believes that during this period the children lack in harmony and control and their
movements are uncoordinated. During this period music, play, religion, morals
and mathematics should be taught to children. Plato thinks that education in these
will bring the necessary rhythm, melody and control in the behaviour of children.
This period begins at thirteen. Plato says, "The age of thirteen is the proper time
for him to begin the lyre, and he may continue at this or another three years, . . .
whether his father or himself like or dislike the study, he is not to be allowed to
spend more or less time in learning music than the law allows‖ (Plato;1997).

82
Hence, this period from thirteen to sixteen was to be devoted to training in
instrumental music which consisted of the play of cithera, religious hymns,
memorize poetry, arithmetic (especially theory).

There is a period of physical education. This period extends from sixteen to

twenty. During this period special attention to formal gymnastic and military
training should be given. No stress on intellectual training during this period is
desirable. Plato recommends that at the age of twenty the most promising young
men and women should be selected through diagnostic tests for a ten year course
in scientific studies. At this period, the purpose will be to help young men and
women to see the inter relationship of facts, because during this period of growth
there is a need of correlating of all thinking.

During this period, the systematization of the various sciences will be

emphasised—there will be coordination of reason and habits and inter-relating of
the physical sciences. Plato says, "The sciences which they learned without any
order in their early education will now be brought together, and they will be able
to see the natural relationship of them to one another and to true being." Plato has
recommended a course for officers selected to serve the state in high offices. This
course is for the period from thirty years of age upto thirty-five. The course
consists of philosophy, sociology, government, law and education.

Those selected as high officers will serve the state on active duty from thirty-five
to fifty. Plato has recommended that at fifty, the high officers of the state should
be relieved from active duty and they should be encouraged to give their attention
to the study of higher philosophy.

Plato was not sympathetic to practical arts. He considers them vulgar and unfit for
a gentleman. He regards them suitable only for slaves. Therefore, he has given no
place to them in his scheme of education. Plato declares, "If any citizen inclines to
any other art than the study of virtue let them punish him with disgrace and
infamy" (Plato;1997). No Education for Slaves. Plato has declined to recommend
any system of training for the slaves; because he wants to exclude them from
participation in any affairs of the state. He wants that they should follow the
traditional family life. He expects the slave boy to follow his father's occupation,
and the girl to take part in the household activities of the women. Thus, Plato
wants that the slave boy and girl should learn by imitation, because all their
training is only an affair of forming right habits.

In the case of the education of women, we have already seen that the men and
women have fundamentally the same nature, except that the women are weaker.
"All pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is
inferior to a man" (Plato;1997). If men and women have the same qualities as

83
 regards their duties in the state, it means they should have the same education.
Plato says that music, dancing, gymnastics, military exercise, horsemanship and
fighting should be taught both to men and women.

1.3.2 Plato’s Thoughts on Philosophical Anthropology

How does Plato try to explain the idea of human nature from the perspective of
philosophy? This is the principal question which the present unit wishes to
explore.

One approach to philosophical anthropology, that advocated by Plato, views the

human being as a tripartite entity whose basic elements include: the body, the will,
and the mind.

The most basic element is the body (or flesh, sarx). Corporeal by nature, that is,
comprised of matter, the body is "hotwired" to seek pleasure through the senses.
In some ways, that human beings seek pleasure through the agency of their body is
a good thing. For example, people derive pleasure from eating, an activity that
provides the nutrition the body needs to remain healthy. People also derive
pleasure from imbibing beverages, for example, to slake one's thirst. Pleasure also
accompanies copulation, through which human beings procreate, thus insuring the
continued existence of the human race.

But, in other ways, pleasure seeking may not be a good thing for human beings.
For example, some people enjoy eating not for nutritional purposes (that is a
secondary or derivative effect) but rather because of the pleasure one's palate
derives from eating. Others enjoy imbibing in drugs, like alcohol, because of the
pleasure the body derives from drugs. Arguably, sexual pleasure is perhaps the
greatest form of physical pleasure human beings experience and some people
engage in sexual activity solely because of the intense pleasure it gives them.

The point Plato is arguing by looking at the body the way he does is that one can
equate "happiness" with "pleasure" in ways that do not promote true happiness
but, in the end, addict the human being to pleasure that ultimately will lead to the
destruction of the body.

Conversely, people generally refrain from engaging in those things that do not
give pleasure. Each of these activities―through which the body experiences
pleasure―contribute to human "happiness." "In the middle is virtue to be found"
(in medio stat virtu est) the ancient Stoics taught because, too much food, drugs,
and sex can and, as such, its matter is destined over time to wither and decay. The
end of the body, then, is death.

84
 Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Plato says that music, dancing, gymnastics, military exercise, housemanship
and fighting should be taught both to men and women (a) True (b) False

2. For Plato, the body has how many parts? (a) Two (b) Three (c) Four (d) Five

1.4 Summary
In this unit, we have been able to discover the relationship between Plato‘s thoughts
on education and how those also became influential in his view of a man. This has
been able to assist us in comprehending what Plato is saying concerning man from a
philosophical perspective.

1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Hummel, C (1999) ‗Plato‘ in Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Education,
Paris, International Bureau of Education
Omoregbe, J.E, (1999) A Simplified History of Western Philosophy, Lagos, JOJA
Publications
Plato (1997) Republic, Trans by John Davies and David James Vaughan,
Hertfordshire, Wordsworth Edition
Stumpf, S.E (1979) Elements of Philospohy: An Introduction, USA, McGraw Hill
Book Company
Yogendra, S (2002) The Doctrines of the Great Western Educators: From Plato to
Bertrand Russell, New Delhi, Kanishka Publishers
http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/EDU%204290/index6.html

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. (a); 2. (b)

85
UNIT 2: Jean-Paul Sartre’s Philosophical Anthropology
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Sartre‘s Existentialist Background to Man
1.3.2 Sartre‘s Philosophical Anthropology
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
In this unit, we are going to be looking at the philosophical anthropology of Sartre.
This is however going to help us to understand where he is coming from. Sartre is of
the opinion that man can be studied through phenomenology and existentialism. So it
we explore his background on this before his view of man.

1.2 Learning Outcome

At the end of this unit, students should be able to:
 Understand the core contention of Sartre‘s philosophical anthropology; and
 Be able to relate how existentialism and phenomenology functioned in his
reflections on man.

1.3.1 Sartre’s Existentialist Background to Man

We shall in this connection be looking at Sartre‘s ontology, psychology and the
doctrine of authenticity. It must be stated from the outset that for Sartre, man is
free and his freedom makes him to choose anything he wants to. Sartre is of the
view that man ‗exists‘ first before s/he can determine an essence or objective for
her/himself. Man is free. For Sartre ―man is condemned to be free‖
(Sartre;1956:555). He further reveals thus:
Human reality is its own nothingness. For the for-itself, to be is to
nihilate the in-itself which it is. Under these conditions, freedom can
be nothing other than this nihilation. It is through this that the for-
itself escapes its being as its essence; it is through this that the for-
itself is always something other than what can be said of it. For in
the final analysis, the for-itself is the one which escapes this very
denomination, the one which is already beyond the name which is
given to it, beyond the property which is recognized in it. To say that
the for-itself has to be what it is, to say that it is what it is not, to say
that in it existence precedes and conditions essence or inversely
according to Hegel that for it "Wesen ist was gewesen ist"—all this
is to say one and the same thing; to be aware that man is free. . . . I
am condemned to exist forever beyond my essence, beyond the
causes and motives of my act. I am condemned to be free. This
means that no limits to my freedom can be found except freedom

86
 itself, or if you prefer, that we are not free to cease being free
(Sartre;1956:439).

From this excerpt, Sartre appears to leave out the notion of the existence of God as
the source and creator of values. For J.P. Sartre, man is free. ―The essential point
here is the statement that man is only what he wills himself to be‖
(Plantinga;1958). From here onwards, Sartre makes the case that existence
precedes essence. A similar theme may be found in Existentialism is a Humanism
where he harps that:
What is meant by saying that existence precedes essence? It means
that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and only
afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives
him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward
will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will
be. Thus there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive
it. Not only is man what he conceives himself, but he is also only
what he wills himself to be after this thrust towards existence. Man
is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first
principle of existentialism (Sartre;1946:27).

Let us no consider the main aspects of his existentialism intoto so as to become

familiar with the basic ideas that he presents to us which will then help us to better
digest his existentialist ethics.

Ontology: Sartre made a distinction between two regions of being. He calls one
‗being for itself‘ and the other ‗being in itself‘. This is even made evident in the
subtitle of Being and Nothingness as An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology.
Sartre makes the dichotomy between the ‗being for-itself‘ and ‗being in-itself‘.
―The terms ‗being-in-itself‘ and ‗being-for-itself‘ are derived first of all from
Hegel‘s Ansichsein and Fürsichsein. But, only slightly more remotely, the term
‗being-in-itself‘ is an obvious allusion to Kant‘s notion of the ―thing-in-itself‖ —
absolutely independent of our viewpoint‖ (Spade;1996:14). Being-for-itself is the
realm of human freedom and consciousness. For Sartre, human reality is free
because it is not enough. Sartre arrived at the bifurcation between being-for-itself
and being-in-itself from phenomenological analysis (Anderson;2010:3). He
compares being-for-itself with human consciousness. He brings ‗being for itself‘
to be consciousness. Consciousness is described as non-substantial and
contentless, that is, as ―entirely activity and spontaneity,‖ ―self-determining,‖
―self-activated‖ and, therefore, free (Sartre;1956:iv). Being-in-itself, on the other
hand, is passive and inert, so identical with itself and filled with being that it is a
totally undifferentiated, full positivity of being (Anderson;2010:6). These two
realms are ―absolutely separated regions of being,‖ Sartre claims, because being-
in-itself is so filled with being that it does not enter into any connection with what

87
 is not itself‖ (Sartre;1956:lxv). It is ―isolated in its being‖ (Sartre;1956:lxvi).

Psychology: The psychology present in the existentialism of Sartre derives from

his treatment of consciousness. We must not forget that his idea of consciousness
centres on the aspect of being for itself. Employing the phenomenology of Husserl
to the principles in psychology, Sartre makes an applaudable effort in the field. He
gives a deeper understanding of the emotive state of the human mind, the mind of
the being for itself. He believes that our emotions are not inner states but ways of
relating to the world. They are also intentional. This implies that emotive behavior
involves physical changes and what he calls quasi ‗magical‘ attempt to the world
by changing ourselves. Emotions are spontaneous and prereflective relations. They
are not the product of reflective decision. Despite the fact that our emotions and
psychological state are spontaneous, Sartre maintains that we are still responsible
for them. We can notice the interface between the idea of freedom and
responsibility already even in his psychology. What happens if we do not live
responsibly to the freedom we are immersed in? The next section addresses this.

Authenticity: This term ‗authenticity‘ is more commonly employed by Martin

Heidegger (Unah & Osegenwune, 2010) to reveal the idea of living a life that
mirrors our real intentions. Sartre also employed the term in the same manner to
capture the kind of life which accepts the load of the responsibility that arises as a
result of the freedom that is its antecedent. It is true, Sartre admitted, that many
people are not consciously or visibly anxious (Moore & Bruder, 2011:166). But
this merely is because they are hiding or fleeing from their responsibility: they act
and live in self-deception or inauthenticity, what Sartre called ―bad faith.‖ Further,
he said, they are ill at ease with their conscience, for ―even when it conceals itself,
anguish appears‖ (Sartre, 1956)

1.3.2 Sartre’s Philosophical Anthropology

Sartre believed that as human beings we are free to make our own decisions and
choices (free will). This belief rejects the argument that states that life is pre-
determined because of past events (determinism). In other words our everyday
actions are the result of other causes.

Being and Consciousness: Sartre rationalizes this notion of human freedom by

explaining his thoughts on consciousness (phenomology). Firstly, Sartre described
two different types of beings' in the world; Being-for-itself (etre-pour-soi): Sartre's
term for any being capable of self-consciousness. Being-in-itself (etre-en-soi):
Sartre's term for anything that lacks self-consciousness.

Another characteristic of the being-for-itself (humans) is the ability to project

themselves in the future or to reassess their past. Also, being-for-itself have the
ability to recognize when something is absent.

88
For example if you arranged to meet a friend at a caf but he does not arrive then
his absence is felt. You could list all the people you know who weren't in the caf,
but it will only be your friend who you would genuinely miss. Sartre describes this
absence or lack of something as nothingness'. This knack to see things which are
missing is linked to Sartre's idea of freedom. This is because we can picture things
which have not happened and things yet to be done, and subsequently this reveals
a world full of possibilities where anything can happen (freedom).

Freedom and Responsibility: Human beings have free will and because
consciousness is empty, it does not determine what we choose. Sartre argues that
we definitely are not constrained by past choices and we are free to do as we wish.
Sartre does not deny there are some things we can't change or influence (facticity),
such as where we were born and who our parents are, but believes we can change
are attitude towards them. Sartre totally rejects the concept that our genetics and
upbringing shapes who we are today. Instead Sartre argues that humans have the
responsibility to choose what we become. This view that we can choose who we
become sounds appealing; however, Sartre states that this freedom and
responsibility we possess is apparently too unbearable for us, hence his phrase
condemned to be free'. The following phrases help explain this notion:

―Man being condemned to be free carries the weight of the whole world on his
shoulders; he is responsible for the world and for himself as a way of being.‖

―I carry the weight of the world by myself alone without anything or any person
able to lighten it.‖

Sartre uses the example of war to portray our individual choices and decisions,
stating that to be involved in a war still means you had the choice to do otherwise.
Meaning we have always got a choice no matter what. Sartre uses the following
phrase when talking about men in war:

―I deserve it because I can always get out of it by suicide or by desertion. Any way
you look at it, it is a matter of choice.‖

Bad Faith (Escaping our Responsibilities): As human beings we are always

trying to escape this freedom which is too much for us, and one coping mechanism
to overcome this responsibility is something called bad faith'.

Bad faith (Mauvaise foi): a particular kind of self-deception that involves denying
your own freedom.

Sartre's most famous example of bad faith is of a caf waiter. Here it is explained

89
 that one solution to escape our freedom is to slip into a social role, such as a waiter
and then we can just become things' or objects' (being-in-itself).This means that
we play at being ourselves and are not our true selves, which Sartre also describes
as being inauthentic'.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. ________ is a particular kind of self-deception that involves denying your
own freedom (a) bad faith (b) good faith (c) mauvais foi (d) (a) and (c)

2. Sartre divided the human personality into _____

1.4 Summary
In this unit, we have been able to consider the ways that Sartre‘s phenomenology
and existentialism are crucial elements in assisting us to comprehend his
philosophical anthropology. For Sartre, because we are free in every situation, we
are also responsible for our own choices that we make. However, the weight of our
freedom or responsibility, because there are no excuses, can lead to something
Sartre calls bad faith'.

1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Anderson, T.C., (2010) ‗Atheistic and Christian Existentialism: A Comparison of
Sartre and Marcel‘ in New Perspectives, Adrian Mirvish and Adrian van
den Hoven (eds.) Newcastle, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Ansell-Pearson, K., (ed.) (2007) Friedrich Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of

Morals, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Betschart, A., (2012) ‗Ethics in Practice: The Dialectics of Authenticity and

Consequentialism‘, Frankfurt.

Cayne, B.S., (1992) The New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, New
York, Lexicon Publishers

Frost, M., (2009) Global Ethics: Anarchy, Freedom and International Relations,
London Routldge.

Gardner, S., (2009) Sartre’s Being and Nothingness: A Reader’s Guide, New
York, Continuum.

Hillar, M., (2008) ‗Friedrich Nietzsche: Social Origin of Morals, Christian Ethics
and Implications for Atheism in his Genealogy of Morals’, in Essays in the

90
 Philosophy of Humanism, Vol., 16 (1) Springer-Summer.

Howells, C., (2006) The Cambridge Companion to Sartre, Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press.

Hume, D., [0rig. 1748, (2007)] An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,

Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Plantinga, A., (1958) ‗An Existentialist‘s Ethics‘ in The Review of Metaphysics,

Vol 12 (2).

Sartre, J.P., (1956) Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological

Ontology, trans. Hazel E. Barnes, New York, Philosophical Library.

Sartre, J.P., (1946) ‗Existentialism is a Humanism‘ trans. Philip Mairet, USA, First
Publishing Company.

Spade, P.V., (1996) Jean-Paul Sartre’s ‘Being and Nothingness’, Class Lecture
Notes, Fall 1995.

Unah, J.I., Osegewune, C., (2010) Phenomenology and Existentialism, Lagos,

Fadec Publishers

http://www.helium.com/items/462460-jean-paul-sartre-on-human-nature-freedom-
and-responsibility

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. (d); 2. Two

91
UNIT 3: Karl Marx’s Philosophical Anthropology
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Outcomes
1.3.1 Social and Intellectual Influences on Karl Marx
1.3.2 Karl Marx‘s Concept of Human Nature
1.4 Summary
1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1.1 Introduction
In this unit, we are going to consider the position of Marx on human nature. But it
is important that we first of all have an idea of the influences on his ideas. This
will assist us with having a deep understanding of what he is actually saying
concerning human nature from the philosophical perspective.

1.2 Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, the learner should be able to:
 Understand the social and intellectual influences on Marx
 Understand Marx‘s concept of human nature; and
 The economic implication of Marx‘s concept of human nature.

1.3.1 Social and Intellectual Influences on Marx

The philosophy of Karl Marx has the following major social and intellectual
influence: German Idealism, British Political economy and French Socialism. This
section of this unit shall be dedicated to how Karl Marx was able to weave the
basic claims in each of these to form his own unique theories.

Here we shall look at the places of agreement and disagreement between Friedrich
Hegel and Karl Marx. Firstly, there is a need for a background to the discussion.

Hegel‘s influence on both the content and the terminology of the works of Karl
Marx and Frederick Engels has indeed been so profound that a thorough
understanding of these works may be said to presuppose an understanding of this
relationship. Especially the terminology of the Marxists becomes intelligible only
when approached through its Hegelian origin. (Cooper;1925).

Apart from the Hegelian influence, there are a number of other historical events
which affected greatly both the Marxist economics proper, and the more general
theory of historical materialism. These events were all revolutionary in character,
and include the following of particular importance in this connection: the Indus-
trial Revolution, the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, and the
Commune of Paris (Stumpf;1979).

92
The intellectual influences on Marx may be listed as follows: (1) the Utopian
socialists, including the Frenchmen, Saint Simon and Fourier, and the English-
man, Robert Owen; (2) the economists of the Manchester school, Adam Smith and
David Ricardo, together with their precursors and their immediate followers; (3)
that modification of the philosophy of Hegel himself, represented by the Left
Movement of the Young Hegelians, in which connection the name of Feuerbach is
outstanding.

Chief among all these intellectual influences was Hegel. He introduced the
dialectical method one of the astounding developments and achievements of his
thoughts. Dialectics originally refers to the process of thesis, anti-thesis and
synthesis (Stumpf;1979). Ideas are formed and classified in the course of
intellectual debate. Such debates normally with a proposition or thesis and then
challenged by a counter proposition (anti-thesis). Since both are partly true and
partly untrue, the normal outcome of the debate is a revised proposition or
synthesis which combines the valid elements of each of the thesis and anti-thesis.
In spite of this, the synthesis is not always the whole truth. It therefore, takes the
place of a new thesis and undergoes the same process against an anti-thesis to
beget another synthesis.

Hegel recognizes the impact of this logic and imports it into his thoughts on
Absolute Spirit. This is where Hegel‘s dialectical idealism is fully expressed.
Hegel maintains that social institutions reflect the ideas behind them and it is the
movement of ideas through the dialectical process which is responsible for social
change. One of these is the state. For Hegel, the Absolute Spirit, externalizes itself
in and through the material universe. This implies that all changes that occur in the
universe are traced to the Absolute Spirit (Stumpf;1979). This is where Marx
disagreed. For Engels, the Hegelian system merely represents ―materialism
idealistically turned upside down in method and content‖ (Engels;1972).

For Marx, being a materialist, there is no reason to suppose that the idealism of
Hegel is correct. The material universe is all there is and Marx was fascinated by
the sciences which was also a purely empirically discipline explaining the universe
without recourse to spirits as Hegel would have him believe. This is the main
reason why those who followed Hegel‘s teaching dogmatically are called the
Right Hegelians while those who followed another path such as Ludwig
Feuerbach and Karl Marx are called the Young Hegelians (Stumpf;1979). Hegel
had seen his philosophy as a sophisticated and self-conscious presentation of
truths which had been given uncritical and mythical expression in religious
doctrines. For the Young Hegelians, religion was not to be translated, but
eliminated. For Bauer, and still more for Ludwig Feuerbach, religion was the
supreme form of alienation. Humans, who were the highest form of beings,
projected their own life and consciousness into an unreal heaven. The essence of

93
man is the unity of reason, will, and love; unwilling to accept limits to these
perfections, we form the idea of a God of infinite knowledge, infinite will, and
infinite love, and man venerates Him as an independent Being distinct from man
himself. ‗Religion is the separation of man from himself: he sets God over against
himself as an opposed being (Kenny, 2006:305).

The first point of difference between Hegel and Marx is both thinkers‘ conception
of philosophy. For Hegel, philosophy is an activity of thought, a self-enclosed and
self-sufficient Nachdenken (German for reflection, literally thinking-after) whose
purpose is the clarification of what has happened (Hook;1950:22-3). ―To clarify
an event is to explain it in terms of logical necessity fitted into some developing
whole,‖ in that process revealing its meaning, which can be no other than what it
is (i.e. what has happened) (Hook;1950:23). ―The task of the philosopher is to
discover that meaning which is none other than God, or Spirit, or Mind: Geist,
progressively correcting his conceptions after more and more of the web of cosmic
structure has been disclosed to him‖ (Hook;1950:23). Thus philosophy‘s only goal
is self-understanding, in which ―the world comes to self-consciousness and man
rests in God‖ (Hook;1950:23).

Marx retorts that this kind of philosophy is really a retrospective rationalization of

the actual, existing state of things that, contrary to how Hegel portrays it, was
really conditioned by the social, which is material. In other words, Hegel‘s
philosophy is a teleological metaphysics that makes explanation justification and
all history a theodicy (in which evil is the ―counterpoint in a metaphysical
harmony‖ (Hook;1950:23). Against this, Marx proposes theory as the guide to
practice in which practice is the life of theory (Hook;1950:24). For Marx, then,
philosophy is this ―unity‖ between theory and practice—praxis—in which
philosophy is immediately (in) reality, in which philosophy, in a very real sense,
is real.

Thus for Marx what the philosopher does is not contemplative evaluation as Hegel
would have it but involved social activity contemporary with the material state of
things. In fact, ironically enough, Hegel‘s contemplative philosophy itself (like all
contemplative philosophies), Marx points out, is not ―removed from life‖
(Hook;1950:25). Making current society the object of philosophy, a teleological
one that claims that the said state is the highest so far, necessary towards final
perfection with which philosophy does nothing but reflect about that identifies
―reason‖ with ―reality‖ (Hook;1950:20) is to accept that actually existing state of
things—as the State of things, the way that things absolutely are; and as something
acceptable, the way that things should be—in the process doubly legitimizing that
current state.

94
In contrast, for Marx, ―the purpose of social theory is to provide that knowledge of
social tendencies which would most effectively liberate revolutionaryaction‖
(Hook;1950:25). Thus ―philosophy is not retrospective insight into the past but
prospective anticipation of the future in which theory explains why the present is
what it is in order in practice to make it different‖: i.e. (echoing Ludwig
Feuerbach) not only to interpret the world (no matter how differently), but
to change it—to pave the way (not just for Hegel‘s freedom but) for social
liberation (Hook;1950:25).

It is therefore, within the context of dialectical materialism that emerges

statements by Marx on how he intends to use Hegelian dialectics in revised form.
He defends Hegel against those who view him as a "dead dog" and then says, "I
openly avowed myself as the pupil of that mighty thinker Hegel" (Marx:1906;25).
Marx credits Hegel with "being the first to present its dialectic's form of working
in a comprehensive and conscious manner". But he then criticizes Hegel for
turning dialectics upside down: "With him it is standing on its head. It must be
turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the
mystical shell" (Marx;1906:25).

Marx's criticism of Hegel asserts that Hegel's dialectics go astray by dealing with
ideas with the human mind. Hegel's dialectic, Marx says, is inappropriately
concerns "the process of the human brain"; it focuses on ideas. Marx believed that
dialectics should deal not with the mental world of ideas but with "the material
world," the world of production and other economic activity (Marx and
Engels;1956:107).

For Marx, human history cannot be fitted into any neat a priori schema. He
explicitly rejects the idea of Hegel‘s followers that history can be understood as "a
person apart, a metaphysical subject of which real human individuals are but the
bearers" (Marx;1935:102). To interpret history as though previous social
formations have somehow been aiming themselves toward the present state of
affairs is "to misunderstand the historical movement by which the successive
generations transformed the results acquired by the generations that preceded
them" . Marx's rejection of this sort of teleology was one reason for his
enthusiastic (though not entirely uncritical) reception of Darwin‘s theory of natural
selection.

It was Friedrick Engels who in his Dialectics of Nature outlined the main claims
of Marx‘s dialectical materialism in the following words (Terrell;2003):

1. The law of the unity and conflict of opposites

2. The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
3. The law of the negation of the negation

95
 In the end, Marx foresees an era where the oppressed classes would be in control
and usher in the era of socialism, a higher and more complex prototype of the
communal stage. This is an era of transition into communism where there will be
total abolition of state. With these at the background, we are now prepared to
consider his position on human nature.

1.3.2 Karl Marx’s Concept of Human Nature

Karl Marx's conception of human nature has been the subject of much
misunderstanding. It is often believed that Marx denied that there was any human
nature, and said that human beings are simply a blank slate, whose character will
depend wholly upon their socialization and experience. It is true that Marx placed
enormous importance on the view that people are influenced and, in part,
determined by their environments. But at least in one stage of his development he
had a very strong concept of human nature.

In that stage, Marx discussed the concept of 'species-essence' (from the German
Gattungswesen, sometimes also translated as 'species being'). He believed that
under capitalism, we are alienated - that is, divorced from aspects of our human
nature. He envisaged the possibility of a society following capitalism which would
allow human beings to fully exercise their human nature and individuality. His
name for this society was 'communism'. However, it is worth bearing in mind that,
since Marx's day, this term has been used with several different meanings, not all
of which have been compatible with Marx's original usage.

Marx's understanding of human nature did not only play a role in his critique of
capitalism, and in his belief that a better society would be possible (as already
indicated). It also informed his theory of history. The underlying dynamic of
history, for Marx, is the expansion of the productive forces. In The German
Ideology, Marx says that two of the three aspects of social activity which ground
history is the tendency of humans to act to fulfill their needs, and thereafter, the
tendency to generate new needs [2]. This human tendency, for Marx, is what
drives the continuing expansion of productive power in human civilization.
After The German Ideology, however, mention of 'species-essence' as such is
virtually absent from Marx's writings. Some major interpreters of Marx, such as
Louis Althusser, dismiss 'species-essence' as irrelevant to Marx's "later" writings,
while others, such as Terry Eagleton, believe it continues to be an important
concept in understanding Marx.
Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Marx was influenced by _________ number of sources
2. It is within the context of dialectical materialism that emerges statements by
Marx on how he intends to use Hegelian dialectics in revised form (a) True
(b) False 96
1.4 Summary
In this unit, we have been able to discuss the nature of humans from the
perspective of Karl Marx. This unit started with a brief discussion on the
influences on Marx before discussing his philosophical anthropology.

1.5 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Ake, C, (1981) A Political Economy of Africa, Nigeria, Longman Nigeria Plc.

Cooper, R. (1925) ‗The Logical Influence of Hegel on Marx‘, retrieved from

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/cooper/hegel-
marx/introduction.htm

Encyclopedia Brittanica, ‗Socialism‘, retrieved from

http://www.encyclopediabrittanica.org/socialism on 13/02/2015

Engels, F (1972) Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy
in Selected Works of Marx and Engels, New York, International Publishers.

Hook, D, (1950) The German Scholars, New York, Bantam Books.

Kenny, A (2006) An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy, New York,

Blackwelll Ltd.

Marx, K., Engels, F. (1956) The Holy Family, Moscow, Foreign Languages
Publishing House

Marx, K (1906) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, ed. Friedrick Engels,

New York, Modern Library.

Moore, B.N., Bruder, K., (2011) Philosophy: The Power of Ideas, New York,
McGraw Hill.

Stumpf, S.E., (1979) Elements of Philosophy: An Introduction, New York,

McGraw Hill Book Company

Terrell, C (2003) Engels: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford Oxford University

Press

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature#Karl_Marx,

1.6 Possible Answers to SAE

1. Three; 2. (a)
97
 End of Module Exercises
1. For Plato, after the first years of _________, intellectual studies are interrupted in
favour of intensive physical training and military service.

2. For Sartre, man is free and his freedom makes him to choose anything he wants to (a)
False (b) True

3. Marx believed that under capitalism, we are ________ (a) Alienated (b) Eliminated
(c) Incarcerated (d) Intimidated

4. For Marx, human history cannot be fitted into any neat a priori schema (a) False (b)
True

98