|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Some Important Issues in Philosophy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
by Celestine N. Bittle, O.F.M.Cap. A Study and Critique
Table of
Contents: Man is an organism. Like every other organism, there are numerous aspects to the nature of man, and each aspect gives rise to special problems. Some of these problems are comparatively simple, others deep and perplexing. It is necessary to treat of these many phases of man's being in piecemeal fashion. Such a division of material, however, is merely methodological; in reality, man is not an aggregate of separate parts, like the various parts of a machine which a deft hand can take apart and piece together again. Eventually, the philosopher must reverse his methodological procedure and seek to synthesize into the integrated whole of the human person what he was compelled to treat separately for reasons of convenience and clarity. The complete synthesis of the various aspects of man's being into the higher unity of the human person has proved to be a grave difficulty for modern psychologists. Many aspects of man's are "physical" and belong to his "body"; others are "psychical" and belong to his "mind." Integrating these two large groups of items constitutes the body-mind problem so prominent in modern psychology. Then, too, man consists of matter and a vital principle or, according to the usage of common language, of "body" and "soul." Their relationship constitutes the age-old body-soul problem. Again, everything in man, "body and mind" and "body and soul," is referred to the "Ego" or "self." Thereby the body-mind problem and the body-soul problem merge in the modern Ego-problem. And since man is a "person," an attempt at a complete synthesis becomes the problem of the human person. When we speak of the empirical Ego, we mean the "Ego" or "self" as it is revealed to each individual in his own internal experience in the introspective act of self-consciousness. Usually the empirical Ego is observed by the individual in the performance of some action. It may be a bodily action, as when I pay attention to manipulating a tool, to humming a tune, to pronouncing words, etc.; or it may be a mental action, as when I consciously read a book, solve a problem in arithmetic, write and essay, etc. It is in this manner that I perceive my "self" or "Ego" concretely in action. In a similar way, I become conscious of my "self" or "Ego" in certain states which affect me more or less passively. I am aware, for example, that something has struck me, that I feel the cold wind, that I have a pain or headache, etc. Here also it is through introspective self-reflection that I become conscious of my "Ego" as the passive subject in which these states occur. Mainly, I become aware of my "self" or "Ego" when I consciously exert myself, either physically or mentally, as when I push my physical powers to the limit of endurance or resist a pleasurable allurement for the sake of duty and conscience. This concomitant awareness of my "self" or "Ego" in a personal action or affecting state is an immediate datum of my internal experience. I am not, however, aware of my "self" or "Ego" at all times, but only when my attention is focused inwardly. When my attention is focused outwardly, as when I witness a stage play or an exciting game, I may be so absorbed in what is taking place before me as to forget my "self" or "Ego" for the time being. Attention to external happenings is inspection; attention to internal happenings is introspection. The "empirical Ego," therefore, is the "self" or "Ego" as observed at any present moment in a here-and-now experience. The historical Ego is the "Ego" or "self" of an individual as he perceives it through memory of his life's experiences from the present down through the past. Every individual has a history of past experiences. The traces of these experiences are stored away in the mind and are, to a greater or lesser degree, capable of recall at the present moment. Since these experiences belonged to the "self" or "Ego" as to their subject, the part which the "self" or "Ego" played in these experiences is also capable of recall. Hence, the "Ego" itself has a history, peculiar to each individual. The knowledge of my "historical Ego," since it is based on my memory of my past experiences, is of necessity subject to all the vicissitudes and vagaries of my memory. While many events have been forgotten and are perhaps permanently beyond recall, I am usually able to remember the principal experiences of my childhood, youth, and adulthood. All such experiences pertain to my "historical Ego." Viewed in retrospect, the "historical Ego" may undergo a considerable change in the course of time, as the pattern of life changes. Success and failure, education and environment, influence a person in remarkable ways. We are sometimes compelled to confess: "I have changed greatly since the days of my youth." This change can also occur through a change in memory itself. Injury and illness may bring about a state of dissociation in the memory content. We then observe the mental phenomenon of a "changing personality." The "historical Ego" in each individual has its beginning with the first instance of the knowledge of his own "self" some time in childhood. The knowledge of the "self" or "Ego" is not innate; it is acquired. As far as we know at present, the prenatal life of the child is mainly vegetative. (Note: this latter statement is subject to change as new evidence seems to be emerging indicating some external influences on the fetus which go beyond the vegetative. This new evidence, however, would not substantially change the presentation here. It would merely mean that the prenatal life of the child, while mainly vegetative, is also to some extent sensitive or sensual.) After birth, the child accumulates sense impressions and develops an acquaintance with his own body and with surrounding objects. After a few years, the child suddenly becomes aware of his own "self" as a person apart from other persons and things; he has reached selfhood. From that moment on he has a knowledge of his "empirical Ego," using the terms "I" and "me"; that moment is also the starting point of his "historical Ego." From the data obtained in this manner man forms his abstract concept of the "self" or "Ego." It should be evident that the "empirical Ego" is very meager in content and the "historical Ego" very rich in content. From the data of the empirical and historical Ego it must be possible to draw certain definite conclusions concerning the constitution and nature of the human Ego. The Ego, considered in its constitution and nature, is termed the metaphysical Ego. The philosopher is interested in this deeper problem of the Ego. That such a problem exists and clamors for a solution, is beyond question. Just what is this "Ego" or "I" or "self" of which man is forever speaking? Does the Ego belong to the mind, or does the mind belong to the Ego? The mind is generally understood to be the ultimate principle or, as others prefer to view it, the sum-total of all the powers, processes, and states found in the sensory and rational life of man. That mind and Ego are inseparably connected is conceded by all psychologists and philosophers. Man becomes conscious of his Ego or self through a cognitive act of the mind; man, however, performs "mental" functions in childhood before he is conscious of his Ego or self. It would seem, then, that the mind is prior to the Ego, so that the Ego is only a phase or part or state of the mind. On the other hand, after man has learned to pay attention to the workings of his mind through introspection, he invariably refers the mind to his Ego or self, convinced that the mind belongs to the Ego as a part to the whole. We thus say: "I have a mind." And we also say: "My sight; my imagination; my memory; my mind." Such phrases are universal, used by all persons and at all times. They plainly indicate that all mental states and the very mind itself belong to the Ego, so that the Ego or self is their subject and possessor. The Ego, therefore, is more basic and ultimate than the mind itself. We observe a similar relationship between the "soul" and the "Ego." We frequently say, for instance: "I have a soul; my soul." (Note: this is the "soul" of classical realistic philosophy, not of religion and theology.) Here, too, the soul is referred to the Ego as something more basic and ultimate than the soul itself. The soul, like the mind, belongs to the Ego, and the Ego is considered as its subject and possessor. The Ego, therefore, is neither the mind nor the soul, but something deeper and more fundamental in man. There is something still more puzzling about the Ego or self. The material, corporeal part of man's being is also referred to the Ego. We say, for instance: "I have hands and feet and a torso, I have a body; my nerves, my bones, my body." The body, therefore, and everything pertaining to it, belongs to the Ego as to its subject and possessor. Thus the material and mental, the physical and the psychical, body and mind, in a word, man's entire being, is conceived by us as belonging to the Ego or self as to its subject and possessor. Considered from another angle, to what is the Ego or self referred? Viewed introspectively, and judging from the expressions used by all men, the Ego is never referred to any deeper reality in man. Occasionally, when a person becomes very philosophical, he may say: "I am myself." Since "I" and "self" mean the same thing, such a statement is equivalent to saying that "I am I" and expresses a reflexive judgment of identity between "I" and "self"; the Ego is simply the Ego. The Ego, I, or self is the ultimate reality in man to which everything in man belongs, while the Ego itself does not belong to some more fundamental reality. Everything is united and unified in the Ego, and the Ego unites and unifies everything in man. Therein lies the profound problem of the human Ego. How can the Ego embrace within itself such disparate and, one is almost inclined to say, contradictory realities and attributes as found in body and mind? What is the Ego in its final analysis? Is it the body, or is it the mind? If the body, then what about the mind? Man certainly has a mind. If the mind, then what about the body? He also has a body. Or, is the Ego both body and mind? But how can that be possible, since both are such totally different kinds of being? Contradictory attributes seem to exist in one and the same Ego. Man is, in many respects, like a jigsaw puzzle. The physiologists have succeeded in putting a large number of pieces together, and the picture obtained is that of a "body." The psychologists have also succeeded in putting a large number of pieces together, and their picture is that of a "mind." Neither picture, however, is really complete, because both major portions are supposed to be fitted together into the higher synthesis of the Ego, so as to form the composite picture of "the whole man." Yet the two major portions of the complete picture, namely, body and mind synthesized in the Ego, do not seem to match. Philosophers, by a large, find it extremely difficult to effect the synthesis. The problem is, without doubt, not an easy one to solve. Many solutions have been offered. The best way to arrive at the correct solution will be to view the problem in its historical setting.
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
||
|
Main Page & Index |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.