What is to be a person? For me a being is a person if s/he is exists. How do we know that a person exists? For me, a person exists not only because of the existence of his/her body but also the existence of the man’s true self or identity (or being authentic), and also knows what his/her potentials/opportunities (apply/use it) and limitations (be aware/accept it) as a person (that gives way to freedom) including what is the person made of and the most important, to be a subject and to be free.
The Body and the Soul
The article about the Experience of My Body and the Body as an Intermediary said a crucial point that the spirit is embedded to our body; and in that point counts as one way to determine what a person made of. We should know the relationship between our body and spirit in order to understand what a person really is. Others said that our material body is just a shadow of our real selves which is they called spirit/soul. But, where did that soul came from? What is that soul? Can anyone prove empirically that spirit really exists separate from our body? The answer is I don’t know. The article said that soul and body works together and without body, soul is nothing. Yes, a person is nothing without a body because s/he cannot do what he wants, s/he cannot talk, cannot express his/her love to others, or maybe s/he cannot think. Cannot think? Who does the thinking process? Is it the body or the soul? A body has a brain that does the thinking process. The brain sends message to all parts of the body to do an action and also it interprets what the five senses had sensed. The brain also stores memory and in-charge on our emotions like love, anger or others care of the hypothalamus. So if the brain is doing that, so what is now the role of soul? Is it possible that the soul does what the brain’s doing like storing of memory, thinking and others? Are the psychologists sure that the brain does it? How can we determine that the brain is thinking? How can we prove that soul really exists? How about the person who has mental disorders? Where is their soul? Are they still aware of their identity? I don’t know. The only thing I know is just one of them is true that either the brain or the soul is the one in-charge in our thinking process and memory. No one is certain about that like what in the movie, The Exorcism of Emily Ross; the defense lawyer said that it is possible that Emily Ross is really possessed by a demon but it is equally possible the she has only a psychological disorder. If the brain does it, that means that if a person dies, the soul is nothing but an empty and absurd object because the identity is stored in the brain. But it is also possible that the body is just a puppet of the soul and if a person dies, the identity of the person still exist in the soul. So, in the statements, “I am my body” and “I have a body,” I think that only one of them is the reality but no one is certain about it. I think that crucial point is still unanswerable for this moment but there is a possibility that one day, the real answer on that matter will arrive but let us also don’t remove the possibility that this issue will not be resolved forever and just accept the incompleteness of knowledge about what really a person is made of.
Authenticity and Relationship
The next issue is about the authenticity of the person. Martin Bubber’s exposition of an I-Thou relationship helpful to encourage people to be authentic. As I mentioned a while ago, one way to be considered existing is to be authentic. The I-Thou opposed to the I-it relationship where only one party considers him/herself a subject and treats other as an object. This relationship hinders the freedom or the other party treated as object. Freedom also one important aspects of existence as also mention a while ago. If one does not let others free, that person who treats others as object may be also treated as object by the others because of his/her inconsideration. And that inconsideration may be threat to his/her freedom. Example, a guy considers her girlfriend as object. In that case, the guy’s command to his girlfriend should be obeyed and or else, you know what will happen next. The girl may rebel against his boyfriend and can also do blackmail against the guy for example, splitting-up. That blackmail is already a threat to the guy’s freedom. That is what may happen in an I-it relationship. They should allow each other to be their selves and respect each others beliefs. There should be a dialogue not a monologue. Another point the Buber tells about being our own selves to everyone and in Filipino context, “plastic”. I think that a person’s identity is confusing if that man has different personalities to each person he knows. Those persons who are “plastic” and hypocrite are not trustworthy. An example would be, if a guy appears to be a Tapat (a DLSU political Party) supporter on a Tapat supporter friend and a Santugon (Rival of Tapat) supporter to a friend just to please or not to hurt the feelings of both of them. Then it happens to be that the Tapat person and the Santugon person are best friends but the guy doesn’t know about that. So if the best friends talked about who the guy supports, there will be misunderstanding on all of them three which can be a threat on their friendship. But, if the guy told the truth, I think, quarrel will be evaded and if the friend becomes angry to the guy for not supporting the party, I think that that friend is not a real friend for not respecting one’s belief. We should accept and consider the reality on ones identity no matter what painful it and we are lucky for knowing that truth because at least, we know the real identity of the person than the other and truth always sets us free. That is the importance of authenticity towards freedom that is one factor for the existence of a person.
Absurdity and Meaningfulness of Life
Now, the next point is the idea of Albert Camus about the absurdity of life which is one of person’s limitations. That point is very important for us because knowing what really life is will give us more freedom. The point said that life has no meaning at all and we must accept the reality that it is it. Many people are attempting the real and absolute meaning of life but I think those people are just wasting their time of doing so. The most common answer to the question of the people of what’s the meaning of life especially the Christians is our life should be offered to God. I think that those people are just fooling themselves telling that they are depending on God and that depending to a God is what Camus called a philosophical suicide. That other people who depend to a God is just escaping from the reality and finding out some sort of security by creating to their minds a being not present in the material world. Just like one philosopher named Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche told “Live Dangerously,” we should accept the reality that we cannot do anything beyond the present reality can offer. Camus also said that life is incomplete that’s why it’s absurd. But, it is not advisable to commit suicide knowing that life is absurd; that act is also a form of escape from the reality. We should just accept life as absurd. We should not hope for miracles or anything that is more likely impossible to happen in our situation. “Less hope less pain.” OK, miracles may happen but we are not certain of that. We must expect for the worse and if it happens to be that miracle occurred, I think that’s more advantageous for us not expecting for it rather than expecting for it but it didn’t happened at all. We should just depend on whom/what we are sure to be existing like family/friends, money and others. Thou that absurdity of life is a limitation for us, a person should also know what is his/her potentials/opportunities and one of those is the point of Viktor Frankl about the ability of the person to give his/her own meaning of life. That meaning of life is highly subjective and it cannot be determined/studied by psychologist, social scientists, theologians or even philosophers because there is no such thing as absolute meaning of life. We could be considered as object if conform for being determined. We ourselves are only one can determine what’s the meaning of life. That meaning of life we made will motivate us on pursuing our plan/dreams in life. Camus is correct that life is absurd but we have the freedom to put meaning of it. If we conform to the meaning of life psychologists or theologians give, I think that our freedom is violated in that sense. As a mention a whole ago, one factor of existence is to be free. We should realize/be aware of the range our freedom. We are free to make meaning of our life and we are also free not to give meaning on it. We are free and there is nothing wrong if we want our life to be meaningful/worthwhile or not as long as those don’t interfere others freedom which is the limitation of our freedom.
History and Freedom
The next point about our potential/opportunity is the point of the article of Historicity that our future is not determined by something like fate and will of God. All things that already happened in the past is unchangeable and if there is a bad thing that happened to us is also because of us or other people but not God or Fate. I think it is just an excuse if we that “it has to be” we failed an exam. But if it happened that we studied better before the exam or we got a better luck maybe, we passed that exam. Another one, when a couple had a break-up, the girl may probably said that “we had a break-up because God has a better girl for me” which is very illogical. It is right to say that the cause of the break-up is either the guy doesn’t like the girl anymore or there is a problem in their relationship. I think the girl only tell that reason about God’s will because maybe she can’t accept the reality the guy really don’t like her anymore. Now, enough with that Fate or God thing and let us go on the potential/opportunity what can historicity brings us. We have the freedom of on our future because we are the one deciding for our future and we should take advantage of it. We should improve/change what’s wrong in our society. We should use our own freedom and not rely on God/Fate because if we just rely on that, no improvement might happen. But there’s a limitation on this that we must aware of which is we cannot improve/change what is not existing in short, nothing comes from nothing. We can improve our technology like cars and cell phones because they exist already, but we cannot teleport on one place to another for now, because we don’t have idea of how it will work. But it may be possible because we may focus on that already because we have our technology and commercial establishments. Those things can help because it saves time. We can now focus on other things instead of farming and walking because we have already our supermarkets and automobiles. We should take advantage of our potentials in order to improve and make a better world.
Death and Afterlife
Another limitation that a person has is Death. Many of us are afraid of it but we should accept it and prepare for it in order not to be unpeaceful if we die. Though no one knows if there is an after life or none, there is a way for are essence to exist without our material body after we die and that is to live life with others. If we die in that way, our family and friends will remember our essence because we been part of their reality. Though death is said to be a “big joker of life” wherein we may die with our task in this world remained unfinished, those loved ones we left may continue what we had started. But if we choose to live in isolation, if we die, are essence will also be perished and our task will be unfinished forever. But there is nothing wrong with that because it’s our choice as long as we can take its consequences. Persons living in isolation may be lucky if it happens that there is an afterlife because we will not absolutely vanish in the case. A death maybe is a test of love because you still love that person whom we don’t know if s/he is still existing or not, don’t know if that person who dies still remember us. Remember, no one is certain if what will happen to us after death. There is a possibility that our awareness of our identity also vanished together with our dead body. It is also a possibility that our soul reincarnate to a new identity as Plato and Hindus believe and what will happen is our past identity will be forgotten already. But the best possibility for us is what the linear point of view like Christians believe that we have a spirit that has an eternal life after death. In that case, our identity and freedom remains. Thou, Camus proposed that we should expect for the worst but, it is still up to us of what to expect however, remember that it’s our choice and we have no right to blame other being or something if things goes terrible. In the statement that death is a statement of freedom, I think that no one is certain about that because as I said earlier that no one is certain about our situation about death. How can we be free if we don’t exist anymore after death? But if it happens the Christians are correct, there would be no problem about our freedom.
The Absolute Thou or God
The last point I know which is also important is the point about the absolute thou. It is an important point because we can’t deny that most people incorporate that absolute thou in their lives and rely on Him. I think it is already predictable of what is my stand about it based on what I had said earlier - that is the agnostics stand wherein no is certain if that absolute thou or others called God really exists. I admit that I’m one of those Agnostic people that does not stand for neither God exists nor not. The question is where do we get their strength of moving on of our desperate life if it happens to be that our friends and family is on anymore present on our side? Is that God or absolute thou enters to our life or it is just a psychological ability of a person to move on? Both of them are possible, right? Again, I will mention Camus proposal that we must only rely on what we are certain. But, what if God really exist? Blaise Pascal, a mathematician, theologian, and a philosopher said that to believe in God is a bet. He said that when a man happens to believe in God and it also happen that he when he died, he saw that there is no absolute thou existing. What will happen to that man who lived a life of morality and followed God’s will? Nothing will happen, right? But what if he doesn’t believe that God exist and he did all the sins and crimes then it happened to be that God really exists. What will happen to that man? I think that that man is in big trouble because he will be sanctioned according to the divine law. In short, Pascal is trying to tell us that it is safer to live as if God exist than live in a Non-Godly way. Even though I’m an agnostic, I should choose the way how I will live and that’s to live as if God exist for the reason that I will loose nothing if I do moral acts and not doing immoral acts which is according to God’s will. I’m not proposing that all of us should do so. It is still up to us if we take the risk of not believing or live safely by believing because we are free. There is nothing wrong if what you want choose of the two as long as we intervene on others freedom because remember that we are not alone in this world and we must consider others as well. Example, if we choose to live as if God does not exist, it means that we can do any crime we want like to kill or to rape. But, others have the freedom to live/survive and to be virgin. We should consider those freedoms before doing something wrong. So if that’s the case, we might think that the only thing we can do is what is not evil. If we are thinking in that way, we are wrong about that. We can commit suicide without violating others freedom, right?
Summary and Conclusion
Now as you have noticed, my philosophy of the person focused on options and uncertainty. As I mentioned on the first paragraph, to be a person is to exist and to exist to be a subject and be free. I also mentioned about the limitations to be aware of and accepted and those are the absurdity of life, death, and the consideration that others also exist. On the other hand, I also mention our potentials and opportunities which to be used/applied and take advantaged and those are the person’s ability to give meaning to life and the ability to make our own history/to improve and change the world if necessary. I also mentioned of being authentic in terms relationships with others that gives way to freedom and subjectivity. About on what is a person are made of, I think that we should still work on it. And lastly, the issue about the absolute self will help us decide of what kind life we should live. We should live life on our own ways and not what is prescribed by other people. We are given options to help us decide and if there are no options present, I think that is a threat against our freedom. There is no absolute way on how to live life. We make/control our life. We are the scriptwriter of our life! And in that control subjectivity of life enters. If there is only one way/ there is an ideal way of living life, I think it is a stereotype and that stereotypic way of life has no difference in an objective way of life which is obviously against the subjectivity of the person.
I believe that in order to recognize our true selves is to know what is possible and not what the fact is. I believe that facts lessen our freedom because a facts change as times goes by but possibilities don’t. For me, we should be doubtful of what is fact because it the way for us to give birth little by little of the answer to the mystery of what is really being a person. For me, philosophy of the person is a continuous search and I don’t know when this search will come into and end.
The Body and the Soul
The article about the Experience of My Body and the Body as an Intermediary said a crucial point that the spirit is embedded to our body; and in that point counts as one way to determine what a person made of. We should know the relationship between our body and spirit in order to understand what a person really is. Others said that our material body is just a shadow of our real selves which is they called spirit/soul. But, where did that soul came from? What is that soul? Can anyone prove empirically that spirit really exists separate from our body? The answer is I don’t know. The article said that soul and body works together and without body, soul is nothing. Yes, a person is nothing without a body because s/he cannot do what he wants, s/he cannot talk, cannot express his/her love to others, or maybe s/he cannot think. Cannot think? Who does the thinking process? Is it the body or the soul? A body has a brain that does the thinking process. The brain sends message to all parts of the body to do an action and also it interprets what the five senses had sensed. The brain also stores memory and in-charge on our emotions like love, anger or others care of the hypothalamus. So if the brain is doing that, so what is now the role of soul? Is it possible that the soul does what the brain’s doing like storing of memory, thinking and others? Are the psychologists sure that the brain does it? How can we determine that the brain is thinking? How can we prove that soul really exists? How about the person who has mental disorders? Where is their soul? Are they still aware of their identity? I don’t know. The only thing I know is just one of them is true that either the brain or the soul is the one in-charge in our thinking process and memory. No one is certain about that like what in the movie, The Exorcism of Emily Ross; the defense lawyer said that it is possible that Emily Ross is really possessed by a demon but it is equally possible the she has only a psychological disorder. If the brain does it, that means that if a person dies, the soul is nothing but an empty and absurd object because the identity is stored in the brain. But it is also possible that the body is just a puppet of the soul and if a person dies, the identity of the person still exist in the soul. So, in the statements, “I am my body” and “I have a body,” I think that only one of them is the reality but no one is certain about it. I think that crucial point is still unanswerable for this moment but there is a possibility that one day, the real answer on that matter will arrive but let us also don’t remove the possibility that this issue will not be resolved forever and just accept the incompleteness of knowledge about what really a person is made of.
Authenticity and Relationship
The next issue is about the authenticity of the person. Martin Bubber’s exposition of an I-Thou relationship helpful to encourage people to be authentic. As I mentioned a while ago, one way to be considered existing is to be authentic. The I-Thou opposed to the I-it relationship where only one party considers him/herself a subject and treats other as an object. This relationship hinders the freedom or the other party treated as object. Freedom also one important aspects of existence as also mention a while ago. If one does not let others free, that person who treats others as object may be also treated as object by the others because of his/her inconsideration. And that inconsideration may be threat to his/her freedom. Example, a guy considers her girlfriend as object. In that case, the guy’s command to his girlfriend should be obeyed and or else, you know what will happen next. The girl may rebel against his boyfriend and can also do blackmail against the guy for example, splitting-up. That blackmail is already a threat to the guy’s freedom. That is what may happen in an I-it relationship. They should allow each other to be their selves and respect each others beliefs. There should be a dialogue not a monologue. Another point the Buber tells about being our own selves to everyone and in Filipino context, “plastic”. I think that a person’s identity is confusing if that man has different personalities to each person he knows. Those persons who are “plastic” and hypocrite are not trustworthy. An example would be, if a guy appears to be a Tapat (a DLSU political Party) supporter on a Tapat supporter friend and a Santugon (Rival of Tapat) supporter to a friend just to please or not to hurt the feelings of both of them. Then it happens to be that the Tapat person and the Santugon person are best friends but the guy doesn’t know about that. So if the best friends talked about who the guy supports, there will be misunderstanding on all of them three which can be a threat on their friendship. But, if the guy told the truth, I think, quarrel will be evaded and if the friend becomes angry to the guy for not supporting the party, I think that that friend is not a real friend for not respecting one’s belief. We should accept and consider the reality on ones identity no matter what painful it and we are lucky for knowing that truth because at least, we know the real identity of the person than the other and truth always sets us free. That is the importance of authenticity towards freedom that is one factor for the existence of a person.
Absurdity and Meaningfulness of Life
Now, the next point is the idea of Albert Camus about the absurdity of life which is one of person’s limitations. That point is very important for us because knowing what really life is will give us more freedom. The point said that life has no meaning at all and we must accept the reality that it is it. Many people are attempting the real and absolute meaning of life but I think those people are just wasting their time of doing so. The most common answer to the question of the people of what’s the meaning of life especially the Christians is our life should be offered to God. I think that those people are just fooling themselves telling that they are depending on God and that depending to a God is what Camus called a philosophical suicide. That other people who depend to a God is just escaping from the reality and finding out some sort of security by creating to their minds a being not present in the material world. Just like one philosopher named Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche told “Live Dangerously,” we should accept the reality that we cannot do anything beyond the present reality can offer. Camus also said that life is incomplete that’s why it’s absurd. But, it is not advisable to commit suicide knowing that life is absurd; that act is also a form of escape from the reality. We should just accept life as absurd. We should not hope for miracles or anything that is more likely impossible to happen in our situation. “Less hope less pain.” OK, miracles may happen but we are not certain of that. We must expect for the worse and if it happens to be that miracle occurred, I think that’s more advantageous for us not expecting for it rather than expecting for it but it didn’t happened at all. We should just depend on whom/what we are sure to be existing like family/friends, money and others. Thou that absurdity of life is a limitation for us, a person should also know what is his/her potentials/opportunities and one of those is the point of Viktor Frankl about the ability of the person to give his/her own meaning of life. That meaning of life is highly subjective and it cannot be determined/studied by psychologist, social scientists, theologians or even philosophers because there is no such thing as absolute meaning of life. We could be considered as object if conform for being determined. We ourselves are only one can determine what’s the meaning of life. That meaning of life we made will motivate us on pursuing our plan/dreams in life. Camus is correct that life is absurd but we have the freedom to put meaning of it. If we conform to the meaning of life psychologists or theologians give, I think that our freedom is violated in that sense. As a mention a whole ago, one factor of existence is to be free. We should realize/be aware of the range our freedom. We are free to make meaning of our life and we are also free not to give meaning on it. We are free and there is nothing wrong if we want our life to be meaningful/worthwhile or not as long as those don’t interfere others freedom which is the limitation of our freedom.
History and Freedom
The next point about our potential/opportunity is the point of the article of Historicity that our future is not determined by something like fate and will of God. All things that already happened in the past is unchangeable and if there is a bad thing that happened to us is also because of us or other people but not God or Fate. I think it is just an excuse if we that “it has to be” we failed an exam. But if it happened that we studied better before the exam or we got a better luck maybe, we passed that exam. Another one, when a couple had a break-up, the girl may probably said that “we had a break-up because God has a better girl for me” which is very illogical. It is right to say that the cause of the break-up is either the guy doesn’t like the girl anymore or there is a problem in their relationship. I think the girl only tell that reason about God’s will because maybe she can’t accept the reality the guy really don’t like her anymore. Now, enough with that Fate or God thing and let us go on the potential/opportunity what can historicity brings us. We have the freedom of on our future because we are the one deciding for our future and we should take advantage of it. We should improve/change what’s wrong in our society. We should use our own freedom and not rely on God/Fate because if we just rely on that, no improvement might happen. But there’s a limitation on this that we must aware of which is we cannot improve/change what is not existing in short, nothing comes from nothing. We can improve our technology like cars and cell phones because they exist already, but we cannot teleport on one place to another for now, because we don’t have idea of how it will work. But it may be possible because we may focus on that already because we have our technology and commercial establishments. Those things can help because it saves time. We can now focus on other things instead of farming and walking because we have already our supermarkets and automobiles. We should take advantage of our potentials in order to improve and make a better world.
Death and Afterlife
Another limitation that a person has is Death. Many of us are afraid of it but we should accept it and prepare for it in order not to be unpeaceful if we die. Though no one knows if there is an after life or none, there is a way for are essence to exist without our material body after we die and that is to live life with others. If we die in that way, our family and friends will remember our essence because we been part of their reality. Though death is said to be a “big joker of life” wherein we may die with our task in this world remained unfinished, those loved ones we left may continue what we had started. But if we choose to live in isolation, if we die, are essence will also be perished and our task will be unfinished forever. But there is nothing wrong with that because it’s our choice as long as we can take its consequences. Persons living in isolation may be lucky if it happens that there is an afterlife because we will not absolutely vanish in the case. A death maybe is a test of love because you still love that person whom we don’t know if s/he is still existing or not, don’t know if that person who dies still remember us. Remember, no one is certain if what will happen to us after death. There is a possibility that our awareness of our identity also vanished together with our dead body. It is also a possibility that our soul reincarnate to a new identity as Plato and Hindus believe and what will happen is our past identity will be forgotten already. But the best possibility for us is what the linear point of view like Christians believe that we have a spirit that has an eternal life after death. In that case, our identity and freedom remains. Thou, Camus proposed that we should expect for the worst but, it is still up to us of what to expect however, remember that it’s our choice and we have no right to blame other being or something if things goes terrible. In the statement that death is a statement of freedom, I think that no one is certain about that because as I said earlier that no one is certain about our situation about death. How can we be free if we don’t exist anymore after death? But if it happens the Christians are correct, there would be no problem about our freedom.
The Absolute Thou or God
The last point I know which is also important is the point about the absolute thou. It is an important point because we can’t deny that most people incorporate that absolute thou in their lives and rely on Him. I think it is already predictable of what is my stand about it based on what I had said earlier - that is the agnostics stand wherein no is certain if that absolute thou or others called God really exists. I admit that I’m one of those Agnostic people that does not stand for neither God exists nor not. The question is where do we get their strength of moving on of our desperate life if it happens to be that our friends and family is on anymore present on our side? Is that God or absolute thou enters to our life or it is just a psychological ability of a person to move on? Both of them are possible, right? Again, I will mention Camus proposal that we must only rely on what we are certain. But, what if God really exist? Blaise Pascal, a mathematician, theologian, and a philosopher said that to believe in God is a bet. He said that when a man happens to believe in God and it also happen that he when he died, he saw that there is no absolute thou existing. What will happen to that man who lived a life of morality and followed God’s will? Nothing will happen, right? But what if he doesn’t believe that God exist and he did all the sins and crimes then it happened to be that God really exists. What will happen to that man? I think that that man is in big trouble because he will be sanctioned according to the divine law. In short, Pascal is trying to tell us that it is safer to live as if God exist than live in a Non-Godly way. Even though I’m an agnostic, I should choose the way how I will live and that’s to live as if God exist for the reason that I will loose nothing if I do moral acts and not doing immoral acts which is according to God’s will. I’m not proposing that all of us should do so. It is still up to us if we take the risk of not believing or live safely by believing because we are free. There is nothing wrong if what you want choose of the two as long as we intervene on others freedom because remember that we are not alone in this world and we must consider others as well. Example, if we choose to live as if God does not exist, it means that we can do any crime we want like to kill or to rape. But, others have the freedom to live/survive and to be virgin. We should consider those freedoms before doing something wrong. So if that’s the case, we might think that the only thing we can do is what is not evil. If we are thinking in that way, we are wrong about that. We can commit suicide without violating others freedom, right?
Summary and Conclusion
Now as you have noticed, my philosophy of the person focused on options and uncertainty. As I mentioned on the first paragraph, to be a person is to exist and to exist to be a subject and be free. I also mentioned about the limitations to be aware of and accepted and those are the absurdity of life, death, and the consideration that others also exist. On the other hand, I also mention our potentials and opportunities which to be used/applied and take advantaged and those are the person’s ability to give meaning to life and the ability to make our own history/to improve and change the world if necessary. I also mentioned of being authentic in terms relationships with others that gives way to freedom and subjectivity. About on what is a person are made of, I think that we should still work on it. And lastly, the issue about the absolute self will help us decide of what kind life we should live. We should live life on our own ways and not what is prescribed by other people. We are given options to help us decide and if there are no options present, I think that is a threat against our freedom. There is no absolute way on how to live life. We make/control our life. We are the scriptwriter of our life! And in that control subjectivity of life enters. If there is only one way/ there is an ideal way of living life, I think it is a stereotype and that stereotypic way of life has no difference in an objective way of life which is obviously against the subjectivity of the person.
I believe that in order to recognize our true selves is to know what is possible and not what the fact is. I believe that facts lessen our freedom because a facts change as times goes by but possibilities don’t. For me, we should be doubtful of what is fact because it the way for us to give birth little by little of the answer to the mystery of what is really being a person. For me, philosophy of the person is a continuous search and I don’t know when this search will come into and end.
No comments:
Post a Comment