And so again, we are here in the part 2 of our discussion about the philosophical perspective of the self. And we are now talking about modern philosophy. So modern ibig sabihin after ng medieval.
So hindi naman ibig sabihin ng modern to eh. Parang contemporary. Yung modern, ang definition nito ay nasa 15th century.
Hindi na 15th, 17th century. Hindi ko alam kung kailan nabuhay si Descartes. Basta, umpisa tayo kay Descartes.
So, first philosopher is si Rene Descartes. Hindi yan Descartes. Pero alam ko naman na alam nyo to dahil yung Cartesian plane.
Cartesian plane was based or yung name na Cartesian plane is ganggaling kay Rene Descartes. So, Rene Descartes. Ang famous na adage niya is yung, I think, therefore, I am.
For him, the act... So just a context kung saan nang galing ni Descartes yung kanyang theory about the self. Kasi parang meron siyang isang point sa buhay niya na kung saan sa pag-philosophize niya, inisip niya, what if lahat ng mga bagay, illusion lang? Parang i-assume niya, i-doubt niya lahat.
Yung parang lahat ng mga bagay na naiisip niya is, May devil's advocate niya. Sabi niya doon, yung devil's advocate na everything is not existing. It's all a lie. Parang ganun. So parang, pinagdudahan niya lahat ng senses niya.
Pinagdudahan niya yung nakikita niya, pinagdudahan niya yung na-fulfill niya, pinagdudahan niya yung nakahawakan niya, nalalasaan niya, yung mga taong kilala niya, pinagdudahan niya lahat. Kasi iniisip niya, what if hindi totoo lahat yun? So what if yung self-comismo is hindi totoo? So yun yung parang naging context, naging background ng kanyang philosophy na parang lahat doesn't exist.
But in the end, sabi niya, parang lahat walang, kung gusto niya may evidence dapat lahat na nag-exist talaga sila truly in this realm or in this plane. Tapos yung naging conclusion niya is that the fact na nagdududa siya, The fact na pinagdududahan niya yung existence niya, the fact na nag-iisip siya about sa kanyang existence is already a proof or is already an evidence that he is an existing person. He has the self. Kaya nga niya nasabi na I think or I doubt, yun yung mas accurate. I doubt, therefore I am.
I think, therefore I am. So the fact na nag-iisip tayo, the fact na meron tayong mind. is a proof in itself that we already have the sense of self. So for Descartes, the essence of the self, a thinking entity that doubts, understands, analyzes questions and reasons. So kung yung mga nauna meron silang konsepto ng soul, sila ni Descartes meron silang konsepto ng mind.
And same with Socrates and Plato, sabi niya there are two dimensions of the self, the self as a thinking entity and the self as a physical body. So meron siyang mind-body dichotomy. Sabi niya, the thinking self or soul is a non-material, immortal, conscious being and independent of the physical laws of the universe. So yung utak daw natin, hindi daw siya dumidepende sa kung ano yung meron sa universe natin. So the mind exists on its own.
Parang soul, parang immortal soul ni Socrates. Pero hindi niya tinawag na soul, tinawag niya mind. And then the physical body is the material, mortal, non-thinking entity fully governed by physical laws of nature. So yung physical body daw natin, nag-i-interact siya sa physical laws of nature. Meaning, kapag tumalun ka sa isang building, yung gravity, which is a part of nature, may law yung gravity, so ipupull down ka niya.
So bababa ka yung physical body mo. Meanwhile, yung utak natin, yung mind natin, hindi siya bound sa ganong klaseng laws of nature. That's the reason why we can think, we can imagine of things that are not really on this world.
That's the reason why bakit may fantasy, no ba? May mga fantasy movies, may mga fantasy books. Kasi yung mga fantasy books na yun, they don't exist in the real world, but in our mind, they are there. Because the mind is not, is not. dependent sa laws of nature.
It's independent sa laws of nature. If you've watched The Matrix, alam niyo yung Matrix? Buhay na ba kayo noon? Noong nilabas yung Matrix 2000?
Parang hindi pa, no? Yun, i-explore niyo yung idea ng mind and body dichotomy. Parang dun kasi, parang yung mga tao, hinano sila?
Hina-harvest sila ng mga robot. So parang sinasaksak lang sila sa isang simulation. So yung body nila hindi gumagalaw, pero yung mind nila nandun. And once na free yung mind nila, sa matrix, they can do anything they want.
Kung nga rin si Neo, si Keanu Reeves, parang na-free yung mind niya, tapos nakakapag-superman siya, lumilipad siya din sa matrix, nung ending ng matrix. Kasi nga parang na-realize niya that yung soul, yung mind, is not dependent to the physical laws of nature of that matrix. Ganun yung mind-body dichotomy. So basically sinasabi ni Descartes na yung mind natin is limitless. It can do anything it wants.
Because it is not bound by physical laws of nature. So this is the immortal conscious being. Ito yung mismong self natin.
So the soul and body are independent of one another. Each can exist and function without the other. So the self as a thinking entity, is distinct from the self as a physical body.
In other words, the stinking self can exist independently of the physical body. So, may point nga naman siya kasi pwede naman mabuhay yung katawan natin nang walang brain. Kaya nga may mga brain dead na tao, di ba?
Yung mga binubuhay na lang sila ng machine kasi wala na yung mind or something like that. Or meron din naman yung mga sa science fiction, di ba? I-upload nila yung consciousness nila sa isang computer.
And... That is theoretically possible, but di pa nagagawa. And following this logic, just a thought, alam nyo yung mga AI, yung mga AI, artificial intelligence na full functioning AI, hindi yung AI lang ng algorithm. Palagay nyo may mga AI, souls ba yung mga yan?
Pag nakagawa sila ng fully functioning AI, as in yung general AI, can we say na conscious yun? Yan yung chappy. Yung movie, yes. It can also be. Yan, dito dyan ang gagaling yung mga stories natin.
Yung mind-body dichotomy. Especially sa science fiction. So, ayan. O kaya naman, for example, head transplant.
Pag tinransplant mo ba yung head ng isang tao, sino yung tao yun? Siya ba yung nasa head? Anyway, mas may applicable mamaya yun.
But basically, Descartes is saying that the mind and body are separate. And yung mind, yun yung tayo. Yun yung conscious.
Yun yung parang nag... Kung meron mong mas better dun sa dalawa, yung mind pad. And they are independent of each other. Okay? So, do you have any questions with the card?
Next would be John Locke. Or Locke. Or Locke.
Hindi ko alam kung anong pronunciation ito. So, siya naman, si John Locke, sabi niya, the consciousness or the self is a blank slate. It's a tabula rasa.
He felt that the self or personal identity is constructed primarily from sense experience, or more specifically, what we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. Baligtad sila ni Descartes. Si Descartes, sabi niya, walang pakilam sa mga senses na yan kasi yung mga senses na yan, they can lie. They can be simulated.
They are not really true. Si John Locke naman, yan yung self natin. Yung mga naririnig mo, nararamdaman mo, nakikita mo, yan yung self natin.
Lahat ng experiences natin, yan yung nagkoconstitute ng buhay natin. So this experience does shape and mold the self throughout a person's life. Self-consciousness is necessary to have a coherent personal self-identity or knowledge of the self as a person. So lahat daw ng mga, yung self daw natin, kasi as you can see yung mga nauna, di ba, sabi nila, the soul of a man is good. So therefore, hindi sa blank slate, parang good siya.
Di ba? Meron tayong preloaded app. Alam nyo yung mga preloaded apps. Di ba?
Pagbibili kayo ng phone ninyo, mayroong mga apps yan. Yung mga bloatware yung tawag nyo. May mga apps yung mga yun.
May mga preloaded sila. So, sabi nila Socrates, yung mga apps daw natin good. Di ba? Pero si John Locke, hindi.
Sabi niya, yung mga apps natin wala. Wala tayong apps. Tayo nagda-download yan.
Sa mga experiences natin, yun yung i-download natin. Yun yung makukuha natin. And those...
Kung depende kung saan ka lumaki, depende ano yung naging experience mo, yun yung magiging sense of self mo. Okay? And para ma-organize yung mga experiences na yan, kailangan yung self-consciousness.
So yung self-consciousness, siya lang yung nag-o-organize sa experience mo. Hindi siya soul, hindi siya good. It's just there to organize. Magmumura sana ako.
Pwede mo magmumura dito? It is just there to organize some stuff. Okay? Which is yung experiences mo. So consciousness is what makes people, what makes possible our belief that we are the same identity in different...
Ba't ang weird ng syntax nito? Di ko yata na-edit. Anyway, so basically consciousness yung parang nag-aano sa atin na we are the same person from the past, present, and future. Using the power of reason and introspection enables people to understand and achieve accurate conclusions about the self.
So in essence, the self is a collection of memories organized by consciousness. So yun yung ano ni John Locke. Parang nung una, wala tayong laman, tabularasa tayo. And then as we go along with our life, nakakakuha tayo ng experience, and then yung experience, ino-organize ng consciousness natin.
So sa pag-o-organize niya, meron siyang kinakalimutan, meron siyang inaalala, meron siyang binabago. And then yung mga thoughts na yun, i-organize ng self natin, ang consciousness natin. And then magkakaroon tayo ng sense of self.
Kaya nga kung papansin ninyo, yung buhay natin, pagtatanong nila tayo, so describe yourself. O kaya tell me more about yourself. Usually, kukwento natin yung buhay natin.
Kakwento natin ano yung nangyari sa atin or ano yung nangyayari sa atin. Diba? So, ganun daw yung self natin. It's a collection of experiences organized by our consciousness. Do you agree?
Kanino kayo mas agree? Kay John Locke o kay Descartes so far? Or, eh, hindi ko sila gusto, sir.
May mga ganun ba? Medyo John Locke muna, sir. John Locke muna. O, sige.
Marami pa yan. Okay? So, medyo weird nga naman kasi si Anna. Medyo weird si... Si Descartes, napaka-rationalist kasi niya.
So papansin niyo, may rationalist, yung mga modern philosophers, may rationalist and then merong mga empiricist. So yung mga rationalist, sila yung mga mind lang talaga. So yung focus sila sa logical thinking, sa thoughts, instinct, or intuition. Meanwhile, yung mga empiricist, sila yung mga evidence-based, sila yung mga experience-based, katulad ni John Lope, na sabi niya, the self is experience, galing sa labas.
So merong... empirical evidence or meron empirical thing na involved sa self. So, since math majors kayo, no?
Ang expectation siguro, hindi eh. Kasi math is both rational and empirical eh. The, the, yung mga pure mathematicians, yung mga talagang math lang, yung mga equations and then meron mga physicists. Yung mga physicists sila yung mga nag-solve ng equations ng laws of nature which is very empirical in nature. Okay, so John Locke and then next will be David Hume.
Si David Hume sabi niya, there's no self. So what people experience is just a bundle of collection of different perceptions, impressions, sensations, ideas, thoughts, and images. So there's no past nor future, only the present situation provided by the environment.
So the idea of personal identity is just a result of imagination. Parang ano eh, anong pinagsasabi niyo? Walang totoo, walang self.
Yung self na meron tayo, illusion lang yan. Illusion lang yan, nabdinala ng mga experiences natin or dinala ng present stimulation na meron tayo. Just a bundle of collection of different perceptions, impressions, sensations, and ideas. For example, this moment in time, this moment in time, you are in your PC, in your computer, your laptop, that is a sensation.
May sensation na lalabas yung laptop nyo, yung ear, saka... Yung air sa bahay ninyo, kung wala mang air, yung init, yung humidity, yung tactile information na nagdala ng mga higaan ninyo, kasi for sure nakahiga kayo. Those are just there. And those collection of different perceptions, impressions, makes up our sense of self. So yung self nyo ngayon, illusion lang yan, nadala ng mga yan.
Dala ng body ninyo, dala ng environment ninyo. Walang soul, walang consciousness, it's just an illusion brought by the external world. So the idea of personal identity, kung sino ka ngayon, is just a result of what is present here. Ano yung mga alam nyong alam nyo about sa sarili ninyo. When in reality, sabi ni David Jung, kung papakaisipin din natin, Sure ba kayo na yung mga naaalala nyo about sa sarili nyo is nangyari talaga?
O baka iniimagine nyo nang nangyari sila para mag-make sense yung buhay nyo ngayon? Binibiyak ko na ba yung ulo ninyo? Hindi pa naman. Yun. Yun yung kay David Yung.
Nagets nyo ba yung kay David Yung? Simple lang siya pero hindi. Nagets nyo ba? Masaya diba?
There's no self. Yan. Ito yung idol ko naman si Yung dito.
Parang napaka nonchalant nila. Wala namang self eh. Niloloko nyo lang yung mga sarili ninyo. Ganyan siya eh.
Very opposite dun sa dalawa. So, si David Jung, we can argue that empiricist siya. Empirical yung ala niya. Wala siyang paki sa rational thinking. Next, ito.
Emmanuel Kant, understand. Yung tawag ko sa kanya kasi. I've read his philosophy.
Siguro, mga 5% lang yung nag-gets ko. Kasi yung hirap may intindihin. Isa siya sa mga pinaka-mahirap intindihin na philosophers. Parang...
Hindi pang advanced siya. Even yung mga kilala kong mga seminarista, kasi sa seminaryo, di ba, BA in Philosophy sila. Ayaw din, di naman sa ayaw nila si Kant. Actually, maraming nag-i-enjoy kay Kant. Pero aminado sila na di nila naintindihan si Kant.
Sabi nila, pag sinabi mo naintindihan mo si Kant, it's either nagsisinungaling ka or hindi mo naintindihan talaga si Kant. Kasi ganun siya ka-complex. Pero at the same time, ganun. Yung parang nag-mimix sense siya.
At the same time, parang... Ano mo naisip yan? Ganun siya. Ganun si Emmanuel Kant. Kasi si Emmanuel Kant, siya yung nag-unify ng empiricism at rationalism.
So parang pinagsanib pwelsa niya yung dalawa. Kasi tama na naman siya. May part yung self natin na rational, may logical, may mind, may soul.
But at the same time, that soul, that mind is also interacting with the outside world. So yung outside world na yun is, syempre may interaction sila. So yung resulta ng interaction na yun, yun yung magiging self.
In essence, yung sense of self natin is both internal, it's internal world and external world, and we synthesize that, those two. May mga times lang talaga na mas applicable yung internal world natin, like for example, pag namomroblema tayo sa mental health natin, internal yan. Diba? We think that we are, we feel like s***, parang we feel like not good. When in reality, the external world is not like that.
Di ba? Parang sabi mo, wala kang kwenta, pero in reality, malami ka ng achievement. Di ba?
Kaya nga may mga taong parang sinasabing lang, walang kwenta yung buhay ko, pero napaka in external observer, parang successful naman siya. Bakit feeling niya miserable siya? Kasi nga, may internal world, may external world.
So, tama yung dalawa. Hindi na, parang aristotel lang din to, na hindi mo pwede talagang mag-one-sided ka lang. So the self is, it is the self that makes experiencing an intelligible world possible because it is the self that is actively organizing and synthesizing all our thoughts and perceptions. So may self na nag-synthesize ng internal and external world natin. Okay, in other words, the self constructs its own reality creating a world that is familiar and predictable.
Kasi tama naman na may external world. Ano yung external world? Yung objective, ang tawag dito is objective.
reality. Yung objective reality na kung saan even walang, for example, the sun. If human beings died off, na-extinct tayo, the sun will still exist for a million of years.
And that's observable. That is an objective reality of life. Okay? Objective si sun. But, let's say for example, education.
Education is something that is not external. Once na namatay na lahat ng mga human beings, there's no such thing as education. It's only internal.
Kasi may thoughts dyan, may ideas dyan, may feelings dyan. Pero it doesn't practically exist. It is not a concrete thing.
It's an abstract thing. And abstraction is just a product of human consciousness. So, yung world daw natin is like that. May internal, may external.
And yung self natin, siya'y nag-o-organize dyan. Okay? We need education because externally we need food. And we need, para mas mataas yung chance natin na makakuha ng food, kailangan natin ng trabaho.
And para mas mataas yung chance natin makakuha ng trabaho, kailangan natin yung education. So, i-synthesize natin yun. So, meron tayong mga kanya-kanyang perceptions sa objective world. Yes, may objective world, but at the same time, meron tayong perception doon sa objective world na yun, iba-iba. So, kaya yung iba, marang pinapahalaga nila yung education.
kasi basic experience nila, talagang malaking ambag na education sa buhay nila. Pero may mga ibang tao na yung education hindi nilang masyadong appreciated kasi wala sila nakikitang point sa education kasi internally, yung internal world nila, hindi nilang masyadong na-appreciate yung education. Mas ano sila sa mga ibang external things.
Like for example, trabaho or yung pagkakaroon ng pera. So yung mga yan, yung nag-o-organize dyan sa internal and external world natin is yung self natin. So the self is not a soul, that is good.
The self is not a blank slate because obviously may internal, may internal world tayo. So meron na siyang idea kung nasan siya. And then yung external, so may experiences.
So it is a product of both. It's internal, external, and it's something that is same with John Locke, it organizes things. It just so happens na yung in-organize niya is not just the external world but also the internal world and how we react with the external world. For example, masaya ka. Bakit ka masaya?
Kasi nanalo yung bet mo na presidente or nanalo yung bet mo na team. Sa'yo, yung reality mo, masaya ka. Pero sa ibang tao, na iba yung binoto, na iba yung bet nila, hindi sila masaya.
So may same reality kayong tinitignan, pero you have different interpretations of reality. And that interpretations of reality is based on yourself. Based on your experiences, past experiences, your preferences, your likes, your dislikes, your everything, your philosophy in life, and how you view yourself. So that is the self. The self that...
integrates the internal and external work. That is our personal beliefs, personal reasons, personal way of thinking, and personal way of doing things. That is the self.
Through our rationality, the self transcends sense experiences. Okay? We may experience the same thing, but we can interpret it in different ways. Another example, ako, as your teacher, some of you will like me, some of you will not, some of you will...
Kiber lang. Diba? Kasi iba-iba kayo ng self. Iba-iba kayo ng personality.
Iba-iba kayo ng way of synthesizing your internal world to your external world. Siguro yung iba sa inyo, ayaw nila ako kasi masyado kong, masyado kong, ano ba, masyado kong corny mag-joke. Masyado kong informal mag-discuss.
Kasi dapat pag nag-discuss ng teacher, dapat formal. Yung iba naman, gusto siguro ko dahil, yun nga, napak-chill ko lang and so on. And that will always depend on yourself. How you in... how you synthesize your internal world and your external world.
Okay? Nag-gets nyo ba si Emmanuel Kant? Understand?
Yes, po. Okay. Yes, po. This is just part of his theory. Marami pa siyang theory.
Sa ethics niya, mas matindi yung ethics nito. Parang mapapawat the F ka na lang sa mga ethics niya. Anyway, at least yun sa self, madali lang siya. Next is si Sigmund freaking Freud. Ito yung major ko, psychoanalysis.
And if you are a psychology major and you don't know Sigmund Freud, mag-shift ka na. Kasi ganun siya ka-importante. So si Sigmund Freud, isa siyang psychoanalyst. And maraming nagsasabi na dapat siya.
I mean sa psychology, isa siyang scientist. Although arguable yan. I myself consider him as a philosopher because his ideas are not really scientific.
They are more philosophical because scientific theories needs falsification. Dapat falsifiable siya. Dapat clear siya sa mga definitions niya.
Sigmund Freud, di siya masyado. So, si Sigmund Freud, isa siyang neurosurgeon. Parang neurosurgeon, masya neurologist pala.
Neurologist siya. di naging successful sa field niya. So, gumawa siya ng sarili niya. Hindi, joke lang. Parang nag-move siya from neurology to psychology.
So, before wala pa talagang formal field of psychology. So, parang galing pa rin sila sa medical sciences. So, yung psychoanalysis, ito yung way niya on explaining abnormal behavior. Okay? So, a bit of context lang sa theory niya.
So yung theory niya kasi ginawa siya to explain the unexplainable behavior of a certain person na tinago sa pangalang Anna O. Kung saan parang may mga times daw na nabubblind siya on one eye and then yung left, hindi ko alam kung left hand ba or right hand niya is bigla na lang namamanhead feeling niya wala yung kamay niya na yun and so on. Tapos walang neurological cause, walang neurological explanation. So ang...
naisip ni Freud, baka hindi neurological, baka psychological. Merong something na hindi nagwo-work. Right. Sa kanyang way of thinking or way of viewing the world. And through that, dinevelop niya yung mga, yung self.
Dinevelop niya yung theory on explaining how a person, yung personality ng isang tao, yung pagkatao ng isang tao develops. And ano ba yung laman ng pagkatao ng isang tao. And sa kanyang pag-iisip and sa kanyang pag- aaral, pinropose niya na merong tatlong levels yung mind.
Meron tayong conscious, meron tayong pre-conscious, and meron tayong unconscious. So sabi niya, meron tayong conscious mind, ito yung conscious mind natin, yun yung aware tayo. For example, aware kayo na nakikinig kayo sa akin ngayon.
Aware kayo na gutom kayo. Aware kayo na busog kayo kasi nag-almusan na kayo. Aware kayo na math major kayo.
Aware kayo na anak kayo ng pengari ninyo. Ano kasing Tagalog ng pengari? Mga magulang. Magulang. Ayan, tama.
So, again, conscious yan. Yung parang madali nyo lang i-access ng mga experiences, memories, and ideas. And then, meantime, pre-conscious.
So, yung pre-conscious, wala dyan sa consciousness nyo. Hindi nyo, for example, anong kinain nyo kahapon, kagabi? Hindi nyo naman iniisip kung anong kinain nyo kagabi every time, diba? Maiisip nyo lang kung anong kinain nyo kagabi kung magdidig kayo ng konti, deeper sa brain ninyo or sa mind ninyo. So makikita, ah kinain ko kagabi, ano, chicken, diba?
So pre-conscious yun. So may conscious tayo yung present na nangyayari sa atin, may pre-conscious tayo yung mga memories natin, no? For example, nag-review kayo, diba?
O tatanong ko, sino yung... Sino yung mentor ni Plato? Sino yung mentor ni Plato?
Socrates. Tama. Di ba? Hindi nyo naman iniisip na si Socrates, Socrates, Socrates, Socrates yung mentor ni Plato. Pero nandyan.
Kailangan nyo lang magbig ng konti. So pre-conscious yun. Now, there is a third layer of our consciousness which is the unconscious. So sa unconscious, ito yung mga bagay na kinalimutan ninyo.
And mahirap silang makuha ulit. And bakit nyo sila kinalimutan? Kasi kinalimutan nyo sila dahil sobrang sakit.
Or sobrang hirap maalala yung mga bagay-bagay na to. Okay naman, basically wala lang. Gusto nyo lang makalimutan kasi you're saving some space in your conscious and pre-conscious. So nilagay nyo siya sa unconscious. Okay?
Dinelete nyo siya nasa... Alam nyo bang kahit i-delete nyo yung mga files, hindi sila na-delete completely. Nasa...
Hindi nyo silang access. But anyway, ganun din sa... human mind.
Meron tayong mga dini-delete, meron tayong mga nire-repress, ang tawag dyan repression. Ng mga experiences na it's either painful sila masyado or masyado silang masisira yung paniniwala nyo sa mundo kapag aalalahanin nyo sila ulit. So yun yung mga beliefs na yan nasa unconscious yung mga yan. So yung tatlong levels of mind na yan, sila yung parang, ito yung nagko-constitute ng self natin. Meron tayong mga alam sa sarili natin, na alam natin, yung conscious and pre-conscious.
And then meron din tayong part ng sarili natin na hindi tayo aware. Pero nandyan. For example, meron ka palang takot sa mga babae or sa mga lalaki. Tapos hindi ka aware. O kaya may takot ka sa mga teachers.
Bakit ka takot sa teachers? Kasi nung bata ka, ina-trauma ka. kinalimutan mo yun, pero nandun pa din.
Yung katawan mo, alam niya. So, unconscious yun. Okay? So, parang cognitive development pala, understanding the self. Oo, parang ganun.
Although mas general yung understanding the self. So, that is the levels of the mind. So, yung mga levels of the mind natin, this will, nandito yung sense of self natin.
So, in essence, sinasabi ni Freud na, There are some things about ourselves that we don't really know of, but they are there. Yun yung nasa unconscious. And then, maliban pa sa levels of the mind, meron tayong tinatawag na provinces of the mind. So yung provinces of the mind, ito yung part ng self natin na kung saan sila yung mga forces or yung mga dynamic. Parang same siya with Plato's soul, types of soul.
Yung ano kasing kay Plato, yung passion or spirit. yung reason and then yung appetite, physical appetite. Parang ganun pero in a different way. So yung id, ego, superego.
Familiar ba kayo dito id, ego, superego? Yes, sir. Cognitive development. O, cognitive development as una yan, no?
If you want to know more about it, meron akong pinost na video ko dun sa classroom natin so you can view it. But essentially, this is how Freud conceptualized human mind or human self, no? Meron tayong ego. So, si ego, kung papansin ninyo, nasa conscious siya, sa pre-conscious and nasa unconscious.
ego, ego kasi this is the part of ourselves that is reasonable. Ito yung naka-attach sa reality. Ito yung ikaw. Ibig sabihin kasing ego, I.
Okay? I. Yung me, myself. Ganon. Yun yung ego. So, yung self ninyo is yung conscious part or yung ego part and conscious siya.
Okay? And then yung super ego, this is the part of ourselves that is involved in ah moralistic choices natin. So, dito yung super ego, siya yung nag-determine kung ano yung dapat at hindi mo dapat gawin.
And yung super ego, galing yan sa unconscious, galing yan sa pre-conscious, and somehow conscious yan. Okay? So, meron tayong mga alam na rules about sa society. Diba?
Alam natin na kailangan maging mabgalang ka sa mga ibang tao and so on. And at the same time, meron din tayong mga super ego na unconscious. Meron tayong mga beliefs na unconscious about sa rules na for example, dapat hindi mo gawin ito kasi against sa mga magulang mo, pero hindi ka aware doon. Like for example, in my case, I'm not a drinker.
I do not drink alcohol. Alam ko na ba, hindi naman bawal yun, di ba? Okay lang naman, wala na masama.
Pero deep down, siguro sa unconscious ko, na meron kasing sa family namin, walang umiinom. So pag umiinom ako, parang feeling ko may masama akong ginagawa. Parang ganun.
Ganun. Technically, hindi naman. So, yun, unconscious siya.
Although ngayon, naging conscious na ako kasi in-explore ko yung unconscious ko. Somehow. Pwede nyo gawin yun. Pwede nyo yung explore yung unconscious nyo.
Yun yung therapy ng psychoanalysis. But that's another topic na. So, yun yung super ego. Pero yung id, kung papansin nyo, yung id yan yung nasa unconscious lang. So, si id, siya yung parang nasty part of ourselves.
Dito natin tinatago yung mga desires natin, yung mga... yung mga bad experiences natin. Ito yung, kung meron siyang, kung si Plato meron siyang physical appetite, si Freud meron siyang id. And same with Aristotle, si ego, which represents reason, will have to mediate between the needs of ego and super ego. And usually, si super ego and id, they are at odds with each other.
Sabi ni id, gusto kong kumain. Sabi ni super ego, bilhin mo yung pagkain. Okay? So, kailangan mong i-compromise yung dalawag using your aid.
So, para mabilim yung pagkain, magtatrabaho ka. Okay? So, yan. And sabi ni Sigmund Freud, or actually hindi nyo naman sinabi, pero in-imply niya na if you want to have a happy life, you must have a strong ego. And at the same time, dapat maging aware ka sa mga unconscious na memories mo or mga unconscious thoughts, behaviors, and beliefs mo.
Kasi, pag hindi ka aware sa mga unconscious mo, lalabas siya in uglier ways. Hindi mo siya mapokontrol. And kung di mo siya makokontrol, of course, hindi siya magiging productive para sa buhay mo. So one way to develop a person's sense of self is to actually strengthen the ego so that mas ma-explore mo ng maayos si id and super ego.
And of course, yung unconscious mo. Bakit kailangan mo i-strengthen si ego para ma-explore si unconscious? Kasi may reason kung bakit nasa unconscious yung mga yan. May reason kung bakit yung trauma mo, binaon mo sa limot. So kailangan yung ego, makayanan niya yung mga makikita niya sa unconscious mo.
Kasi they are not pretty. And one effect kapag hindi mo in-explore yung unconscious mo is that lalabas nga siya in uglier ways such as in depression or something. Yung case nga kanina ni Anna O, ang naging resolution nun is, Parang namatay kasi yung tatay niya. And yung tatay niya na yun is parang very strict sa kanya.
Very abusive din at the same time. Tapos itong si Anna O, meron siyang galit sa tatay niya. At the same time, love pa rin niya yung tatay niya.
And hindi niya ma-reconcile yung dalawang yun. Nasa unconscious niya kasi. So, ang therapy na ginawa sa kanya is pina-explore sa kanya yun, yung feelings na yun na nasa unconscious. Yung Id kasi parang ayaw niya, galit siya sa tatay niya.
Pero si Super Ego, dahil tatay ko ito, kailangan kong mahalin si tatay ko. So, nagko-conflict si Id and Super Ego sa unconscious. Kaya yung response ng katawan niya is hindi siya aware na gano'n yung nangyayari sa kanya. So, yung ginawa ni Freud, o yan.
Sige, explore natin kung ano yung mga issues mo. Kaya nga diba yung meme kay Freud, yung may mommy issues. Kasi yung mga nasa deep down unconscious.
So anyway, so yun yung naging resolution kung kay Anna O. And gumaling naman siya kahit papano, sabi nila. Okay, so that's how Sigmund Freud conceptualized the self. So almost the same kay Plato, but not the same.
Kasi wala siyang sinabi sa soul, wala siyang sinabi sa immortal. Wala din siyang sinabi na the self is good. In fact, sabi ni Sigmund Freud, we are doomed. to suffer in this world.
And we are doomed to become unhealthy individuals. Especially pag hindi natin in-explore yung unconscious natin. Which is usually the case. Hindi natin in-explore yung unconscious. Okay?
So, nag-gets nyo ba yung conceptualization ni Freud? Yes. Sa cells?
Gets ba? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay.
So, next. Gilbert Ryle, ito masimple na lang yung mga susunod. Sabi niya, si Gilbert Ryle naman, the way we do things defines ourselves.
In essence, I act, therefore I am. So sabi niya, yung self mo, yan yung behavior mo. Meron, kung napanood niyo na yung Batman Begins, hindi yung kay Edward Cullen na Batman. Yung Batman Begins ni Christian Bale, parang yung ending na doon, parang merong mga lines na na, it's...
it doesn't matter who am I underneath. It's what I do that defines me. So, walang sabi ni Gilbert Ryle, sige, mag-isip ka na ikaw, ganito ka, na ikaw ay mabuting tao, na ikaw ay very passionate sa paggawa ng mga, kunyari, sige sabihin mo. May mga tao na, I'm, sasabihin nila sa bayo nila, writer daw sila, student daw sila, o kaya naman, I'm, Ano pa ba yung mga nilalagay nyo? Marami, marami nilalagay yung mga tao sa mga bayo nila.
Pero sabi ni Gilbert Rell, walang kwenta yung mga yun. Walang kwenta yung sinasabi mo about sarili mo. Kung ano yung ginagawa mo, yun ikaw.
Kung sinasabi mong writer ka pero hindi ka naman nagsusulat, hindi ka writer. Kung sinabi mong teacher ka pero hindi ka nagtuturo, hindi ka teacher. Kung sinabi mong masama kang tao, kung sinabi mong mabuti kang tao pero nangungotong ka ng ibang tao, masama kang tao. So, si Gilbert Ryle, simple lang.
Kung anong ginagawa mo, yun ikaw. Kung anong gagawa mo, pinika ito. Yung kapampangan.
Okay? Di ba? Simple. Get siya ba?
May tanong pa kay Gilbert Ryle. Wala na po. Wala na po. Next!
Mas simple din to. For Churchland, the self is the brain. All we have is the brain and so if the brain is gone, there's no self. For Churchland, the physical brain and not imaginary mind.
gives us our sense of self. Balalin mo yung utak, wala nang self. Tanggalin mo yung utak, wala nang self. I-damage mo yung brain, wala nang self.
Yan, yun lang. The brain is the self. Gets ba?
Simple, di ba? So, ngayon. So, kung ano yung brain structure mo, in essence, no, yung implication naman kasi nito medyo malaki.
Kasi, for example, meron kang deficiency sa brain mo. Wala kang cerebellum. Meron kang part yun ng self mo.
O kaya naman, meron kang damage sa prefrontal cortex mo. Magkakaroon ka ng intellectual disability. Yun yung self mo.
Diba? So, it makes sense. It's very empirical.
This Paul Churchland is very empirical. Gilbert Ryle is also empirical. Sigmund Freud, rational. Rationalism siya.
And then, ito. Si Maurice Merleponti. Hindi ko alam kung paano yung ano nito. So the self is embodied subjectivity.
Medyo rationalist naman si Maurice Marluponti. All knowledge of ourselves and our world is based on subjective experiences. So the self can never be truly objectified or known in a completely objective sort of way. So if familiar kayo dun sa research method na phenomenology, familiar ba kayo dun?
Phenomenology. Yes, sir. Yung lived experiences.
Diba? Parang yung yun, yung ano na yun, yung paradigm na yun, ang galing yun sa subjective way of looking at things. Parang sinasabi basically ng phenomenology that we have our own lived experiences and it's different from we have different ways of living our life, living our experiences.
And hindi siya pwedeng i-objectify. Ibig sabihin my happiness is different from your happiness. I can be happy with my toys.
You are not. That's why yung mga tao, pag nakikita nila yung mga, ang dami mong binibiling merch, ang gastos mo naman, pake mo, pera mo, di joke lang. Yung mga, di ba yung mga ganun mga tao na parang ginadjudge nila yung subjective experiences ng ibang tao na, ayun, bumibili sila ng merch, parang pasahin yung pera, ba't di mo lang pinambili ng ano, ba't di mo lang pinantulong sa mga mahihirap. Parang, Ito yung happiness ko eh.
Diba? Ito yung subjective experience of happiness. And if you're not happy with my happiness, it's okay. Wag mo pilit yung sa akin, wag mo pilit yung opinion mo sa akin kasi we have different ways of living our lives. We have different ways of living our experiences.
So ganoon si Maurice Morliponti, sabi niya. Hindi natin pwedeng... i-define objectively kung ano ba yung self.
So yung mga sinasabi ng mga theories na nagdaan, hindi yun totoo except kung yung tao in-accept niya na totoo yun. So let's say for example in your case, if you adopted the theory of Aristotle, then that is your self. That is your sense of self. And sabi ni Maurice Morliponte, that's okay.
That's the truth. That's your truth. Okay?
And kung in-adopt mo naman yung kay Freud, that's also the truth. Kasi that is your subjective experience. Ganun mo nataranasan yung buhay mo.
Who am I to judge? Kasi sabi nga nila, the self can never be truly objectified or known in a completely objective sort of way. So in other words, how we experience our lives or how we experience ourself is the way we see ourself. And that is our definition of ourself.
Okay? Nag-gets ba yung subjective, the self is embodied subjectivity? Yes po. Okay.
So, napaka-simple, no? Yung mga naghuliakala niyo, ang dami, no? Tapos magtatagal tayo.
Hindi naman. So, in summary, the knowledge of oneself, in summary, no? I will just throw out some questions, okay? Is the knowledge of oneself coming from within or coming from outside? This is a question of rationalism and empiricism.
And as you can see, different theories lean on one side. So si Socrates and Plato, they're very rationalist. Si Aristotle, medyo may pagka-empiricist siya.
Si Freud is very rationalist. Si Merle Ponti, rationalist din kasi subjective experience. Pero si Locke, si Hume, di ba?
Very, ano sila, very external focus sila. So empiricist sila. Now, they are also answering the question that, are you the person you think you are? Or are you the person other people think you are? Kasi may dalawang versions tayo ng sarili ng amoeba.
Minsan nga maraming versions eh. Meron tayong version ng sarili natin, kung sino yung tayo nakilala natin. At the same time, yung mga iba't ibang tao sa paligid natin, eh meron silang pagkakakilala sa atin na iba sa kung paano natin kinoconceptualize yung sarili natin.
Diba? So, ang saya ng self, diba? Kala nyo isa lang, marami pala sila. Or are you a soul with a body or a body with a soul? Which, you know, what is more important?
Who you are now or who you want to be? Which philosophy are you most comfortable with? And which philosophy are you most disturbed by? So these are some questions that I don't really require you to answer.
But answering this question will somehow help you discover how you want to conceptualize yourself. As mentioned nga kanina, we have different ways of conceptualizing oneself. But if there's a common denominator with all of them, parang sinasabi lang nila na kailangan mong kilalanin yung sarili mo.
Kilalanin mo in such a way na using, majority of them, they will say that you will use your reasoning, you will use your mind, you will use your own observation, you will use your own reasoning, how to analyze, to organize your experiences and define who you really are and who you want. Okay, so in essence, you must have, you must develop your reasoning skills, you must develop your observation, analysis, and even yung inyong way of looking at things, your perception. To become as objective as possible but at the same time consider your subjective experiences. So yun yung philosophical view of the self. So philosophy naman kasi it's very, I can say it's very personal naman for each and every one of us.
So for me, ako kasi yung ginagawa ko sa philosophy ko kung ano yung pinaka, pinag-merge ko sila lahat. Kung ano yung common denominator nila, ano yung applicable sa aking ating... at that moment.
Kasi may mga times na ganun eh. Yung philosophy, there are times na applicable siya on this moment of your life, but it is not applicable on some moments of your life. So, it really depends on your context.
Saan na ba kayo sa buhay ninyo? Saan na ba kayo sa journey nyo sa buhay nyo? So, that's how we can understand ourselves more in a philosophical level.
So, knowing yourself, as I mentioned, is a lifelong search as the self is complete. complex, and very dynamic. Ibig sabihin na dynamic, you have the internal self and you have the external world to think about.
Hindi lang naman tayo nabubuhay para sa sarili lamang. Meron tayong mga interactions sa ibang mga entity, ibang mga tao, ibang mundo. Simple answers may satisfy a child, but in the adult world, the answers are never simple.
I hope you already know this. I think you already know this, but the question now is, do you accept that this is the case in our world? There's no, there are no simple answers. It's always complicated.
And that includes the subject of understanding the self. But there's no reason naman to not enjoy knowing the self. Sabi nga, journey before destination.
So, the journey itself in knowing oneself is better than the destination. Kasi pag natapos na, wala na. Patay ka na. Wala ka nang naisipin pa. So, habang buhay, enjoy yun yung suffering of knowing oneself.
Okay? So, do you have any questions or any clarifications with regards sa ating first topic? Nando.
Ayan naman. Sige. So, wala na. I will end the recording.