MAN: A MYSTERY TO HIMSELF

MAN: A MYSTERY TO HIMSELF

Stella Bassey Esirah

Scientific study of man can neither discover the truth of man nor unravel the mystery of man; this is why one would say that there is a mistake in the mechanistic, scientific description of life.  Determinism is mechanistic and mechanism is scientific because it is based on observation of how the body operates, biologically the brain becomes for the scientists the engine of the body. So they explain man as a control body acting according to impulse and stimuli. Even where this is a true observation of the makeup of the human body, it is not the knowledge of the human person. In fact science can only know the body of man which is observable but can never know that which is not observable in man. Hence there can be a scientific knowledge of the human body but no scientific knowledge of man. The concept of man as we use it here is not in the sense of specie but in the sense of a being that acts through the body. That being is not the body yet that being acts through the body this is why we can say that the human person is not the body alone for example, one can see a child growing but cannot see the actual growth per se. 

Nonetheless, the truth of man is only partially accessible to philosophy because of its speculative nature. There is a principle in man which is distinct from the body. St. Thomas Aquinas discussed this principle by saying that a soul is the life principle of a living body and it is that substance which makes the living body the specific kind of living body it is. Aquinas went further to explain this principle which is not obvious of science but philosophical, he says “The human soul is a non-bodily substance endowed with intellect and will. The human soul has an extrinsic dependence on the body. It can exist and operate per se even if it is severed from the body.” (S.A. Ia2 Q75, p.60) This truth of the soul is not scientific it is philosophical but, philosophy is not enough since divine revelation is required. We say that science is a body established with certitude; but to what extent is this notion true; since there are truths which science has no access to; such as the truth of man, and philosophy also cannot reach absolute certitude about this. The issue of man still cannot be exhausted in philosophy or science because man remains a mystery even though; scholars have made effort to offer an insight into this mystery. 

The soul is the true self and the body is merely the accompaniment of the soul, it is the inner spirit or self, of a person – superior to the body, in which it was temporarily confined during life on earth. The truth of man is not found in science for science only describes the body of man but not the truth of man. But from speculation and reflections, philosophy is able to stumble on such truths about man, though its claims are not empirical. This is why in solving one problem from different contexts of reasoning, whether a posteriori, a priori, or ontological, there continues to be equal reactions put in the same context. This makes all the contexts to equally expand ad infinitum or without limit to the amount of interest raised by the subject concern. This necessitates reactions because of its nature which is subject to speculation and multiplicity of thought and diversity of opinions on the same issue. Opinions or problems are open to many reactions since human thoughts are somehow connected. Hence, in human reasoning there is extension based on this connectivity of points raised as philosophical problems; which could be responded to form different contexts. The problem which aptly describes the nature of philosophy is the problem of man. There has never been unanimous understanding of what man is. This; we can affirm to be the fundamental question of man (The human person) It was the above question which inform Parmenides’ denial of change. That is, it was the problem from infinity to finitude, which made Parmenides reflect on being abstracted from the philosophical problem of man as a human being. In his reflection on being, Parmenides had to deny that change was possible; for nothing comes into being as nothing goes out of being therefore; only being can produce another of its kind. From the above, the fact remains, man is a mystery to himself and to others. 

Man is the only being that has within him, a rational principle of organization, hence the only being that is organized. Thus he has a self-propagating formative power, which cannot be explained through the capacity of movement alone.  This organization in man can be found in all his make ups, body senses, body system, mind system and soul system. That principle of organization is itself internal to man. People hold different opinions regarding what the human person is made up of. But we hold that man is a rational being which gives him/her the capacity to plan, and by planning to order himself/herself, he/she sets his goals which he strives to achieve. 

This is what makes man autonomous and no other specie but the human species with ability for self rule. By this, man becomes the lord of nature, since every other thing in nature including nature itself lacks autonomy. Having an order does not mean ruling oneself so, nature lacks autonomy though it is teleological, man’s place in nature is therefore to serve for a lord in nature that interprets, relates, apply and maintains the order of nature, so that the principle of order in nature will make meaning. Nature itself is readily discovered by man and he intuitively knows what to do to maintain it but man is not able to discover and maintain the order of his own being.

His own teleology is called destiny, moving on the path of human destiny is only possible insofar as man in his autonomy can apply his principle of organization and go on to direct his being through actions that flourish his being. He follows his plan, to achieve his goals, to realize his purpose and to depict in himself a certain degree of authenticity of self discovery. Self discovery is the truth of man that lies within man; this truth within man does not lie in man’s appearance or physical nature as it is in nature that has no interiority since everything in nature is an appearance; such that nature could be said to conceive of only appearances. Whatever science and Philosophy is trying to discover about man, it is not sufficient in knowing the mystery of the human person for; this knowledge belongs to the ultimate being, the creator and cause of human existence and this being is God.     

  

Sr. Dr. Stella Bassey Esirah HHCJ is a lecturer and Head of Department of Philosophy at St. Joseph Catholic Major Seminary, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State

THE WISDOM OF GRAY HAIR

THE WISDOM OF GRAY HAIR

Stella Bassey Esirah

An excited young acquaintance once ran up to an old Doctor and said to him, “do you know what I just heard about one of your students?” Wait a moment, the old man replied. Before you tell me, I will like you to pass a little test. It is called the FILTER TEST. Before you talk to me about my student let’s take a moment to filter what you’re going to say. The number one filter is TRUTH. Are you absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true? No, actually, I just heard about it, replied the young man. Alright, so you don’t know if it is really true or not. Now let’s try the number two filter which is GOODNESS. What you are about to tell me about my student, is it something good? No, on the contrary said the young man. So, said the old man you want to tell me something bad about him, even when you are not certain about it? The man shrugged, a little embarrassed. Perhaps, you may pass the test if you succeed in the remaining one. The third filter is USEFULNESS. What you want to tell me about my student, is it going to be useful to me? No, not really, said the young man. Well then, the old Doctor concluded. If what you want to tell me is neither TRUE nor GOOD nor even USEFULL, why tell me?

Often, some people, even personalities the society deem to be highly responsible and respect so much ridicule themselves by carrying tales that can never be of use to the tale carrier, the listener or to the victim. Some people waste significant time in insignificant things by tale bearing.  This is more embarrassing in a matured society and community of intellectuals. When people who should be seen in the robe of integrity reduce themselves to tale bearing, they make themselves cheap in the public arena. A Christian's life is like a pot that has been set aside for God's use. But like all pots, the life of a Christian must be cleansed purified continually; otherwise it would become useless because of the trash that one allows into the contents of a noble life. This calls for a sincere seeking for an interior model that can reflect in the exterior in the process of seeking a real change. External appearance ought to show the honorable content of the human heart. Therefore, we need a constant inner change, transformation and renewal to give joy to the world. We need to be a part of change for others since nobody should seek his/her own good alone. Seeking the good of others is also a noble virtue.

There are three basic steps in the process of change: To observe, to read wide, and to pray. Observing means keeping our eyes, ears, and mind open to what is around us. It means getting the facts, being honest, and as much as possible, defining the problems. The second step is Reading.  This does not mean that we should read only when we are desperate, or that we should read only the parts that are favorable or familiar. This should also go beyond reading to pass a formal test or an examination. It means that we must read to know and keep busy to widen our horizon. We need to read and apply the good contents to every life situations with the eyes, ears and mind. We need to do this with a sense of openness to God's truth and reality. Lastly there is prayer: praying on all occasions praying about life with heart open to what God is saying.

There are bridges between these three steps: learning to read the truth and reflecting on truth as we talk to God.  These can give rise to actions that can be called, "Doing the Truth." While Christian ethics is based on the revealed truth of God (deontological), there are also legitimate goals or consequences for good Christian Ethics that should lead to the change that we seek in ourselves and others. We can think of these as God's objectives, and the results of the work of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5: 16-26).

                       

A definition of Christian Ethics might contain three general themes. The first is the will, the character of God, and the truth of the Gospel when applied to all life situations. There are views that affirm that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But this view is not biblical, though it is true that we do not know all truth but we have realities (truths) like rights and wrongs which we must use to "sift" the decisions of life. A fundamental truth here is that God is the creator, therefore we must treat this world and its content as his creation, and we must be responsible to him as creatures. Everything belongs to him. Therefore, how I treat nature is part of my relationship to God, not my relationship to the spirits.

A second theme would center on the power and leadership of the Holy Spirit, the one through whom we work out our faith. Christians do not live their faith by themselves. We have a comforter, one who strengthens. God himself seek to fulfill His Word in us; and the mind of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit dwells in us. If it can be said with due respect to the traditional religions that people become like the gods they worship, how much more true it is for the Christian, for it is God who work in us to will and to act according to his good purpose. Thirdly, the uniqueness of Christian Ethics is centered, or based on Jesus Christ, and his relationship to man. Fundamental to all our behavior is this mutual relationship. Thus, how I relate to God will affect, or even determine, how I relate to other men and women.

Learning to recognize these things will help us more clearly in understanding the relationship between belief and ethics,  the unique dimensions of Christian behavior, and how to speak to others of what Christ has to offer them. The result of this is that, goodness leads to salvation; it is that inner clarity of the will to do what is right that represents "godliness" and thus brings salvation here in this life. Do some of these sound familiar? Then we should meditate on this adage: “If you cannot write a book for people to read, then do something for people to write about”. Jesus reveals God who is the truth. The Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to the world while the Church through the truth in humanity reveals the actions of the Holy Spirit. We need to grow up and be matured to be authentic witnesses. So quite gossip!

Sr. Dr. Stella Bassey Esirah HHCJ is a lecturer and Head of Department of Philosophy at St. Joseph Catholic Major Seminary, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State (esirah@hotmail.com).

RATIONALITY AND HUMAN DISCRIMINATION

RATIONALITY AND HUMAN DISCRIMINATION

Stella Bassey Esirah

It is a famous adage that “All men make mistakes.” So, it is important to treat a human being, not as a god but, simply as a human being that is capable of mistakes. If so, then when a person makes mistakes he could be tolerated and corrected rather than condemned. Since all men are capable of mistakes, then mistakes must therefore be tolerable hence pardonable. Understanding the human person as a being capable of mistakes would make it possible to accept people the way they are meant to be instead of discriminating them based on natural frailty. However, the person whose mistake becomes part of his/her identity needs rehabilitation and not condemnation. He/she could be corrected or rehabilitated by trying or attempting different possible kinds of social rehabilitation irrespective of the case at issue. The only difficulty here will be in the deciphering what form of social rehabilitation is needed. Thus, Capital punishment could be a correction only from the Divine whereas it is never justifiable as the verdict of any penal system on human beings. The Divine is the author of life and can restore whatever life it destroys whereas; no human being can restore human life once it is destroyed. Consequently, no human being should directly or indirectly be involved in the process for the destruction of human life. The mistakes which one human person makes can also be made by another and possibly by all if they are put in the same condition of acting. All human efforts should therefore seek a possible means of correcting errors and reforming the agents of transgression. The fact is that, if one in error is not to be discriminated; then discrimination is especially intolerable. The Universal Declaration of Human Right warns against human discrimination of any kind, because all men have equal rights, dignity and nature especially, when the discriminated individual member of the human race is blameless against the issue taken for the basis of that discrimination. There is no justification for human discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color, tribe, tongue, religion or culture. 

There is neither inequality in human nature nor are there unequal human persons. Human nature is fundamentally equal since there is only one human nature in all human beings. A thing cannot be greater than, or superior to itself; the same thing is always equal to itself. Applying this model of formal mathematics to human nature becomes an intuitive knowledge that human nature, which is always one and the same, is always equal to itself. There is nothing like one human nature less or greater than another human nature, since there is only one human nature in every human person. It does not matter who possesses it. Of course, we do not suppose that an animal would possess a human nature. It must be a human person who possesses human nature whether the person is a male or female. The point at issue is that human nature is essentially equal thus; there should be no basis for discrimination on any disparateness of human nature. This equality of human nature is the basis of equal right, dignity and freedom of all human persons. As such, it will be an offence against human equality. An individual uniqueness is only to afford to each person the capacity to supply a particular kind of service better than other kinds of services and better than others; so that, when the concept of division of labor is employed, certain factors must be taken into consideration. This is not discrimination, but a placement of things in the order of their uniqueness, and it is only an act of respect to the dignity of the human person whose nature must be respected rather than exploited to give people their due. Human persons, in their individual uniqueness, play complementary roles in society.

Indiscriminately, they must be allowed to do that which they will do more efficiently and are more proficient for towards the good of society. What this means is that complementarities in society cannot be gainsaid, as it cannot be underestimated. We have to consider the diverse issues pertaining to human discrimination as to show that there is no basis for such a trend in society, hence to conclude that human discrimination is the only thing to be discriminated and not the human person. In other words, let us discriminate against discrimination rather than discriminate against any human person. First and foremost we would look at three arguments that are sufficient for us to discriminate against discrimination.

First, we want to argue that all members of the human community at large have roles they must play complementarily. No member of the human community is irrelevant at any point in time. This applies to debunking every basis for discrimination on class distinctions recognized in society especially in terms of age, experience, endowment, achievements, opportunities, and benefits. Secondly, due to situational discrepancy in the way people rise in life from one level to another; individual persons lack parity in their motivations for vocations, consequent upon which they do not all perform the same jobs. Some are doing substantial jobs that require special skill and training, while others perform menial jobs that do not require the same kind of skill and training. This accounts for the reason we have different kinds of careers. So, on career privileges, those who provide are not less humans than those who manage the resources needed. They both perform duties that are proper to and for their privileges as well as being relevant to the growth of the community they find themselves. So, there is nothing like a justifiable human discrimination that should be based on economic or social status. Thirdly, some jobs are best done by the females and others by males. But the society has equal need and value for the services of both men and women. Thus, one cannot justifiably discriminate the other on the basis of gender and job opportunities that respect gender uniqueness. The society recognizes all genders as unique absolutely, and on that platform of uniqueness conferred by nature on all persons. All persons cannot but feature where their nature requires of them a certain kind of task as the contribution they owe to the growth of society. Every unique person is important and there cannot be any justifiable human discrimination based on personal or individual uniqueness.

The general analysis of the subject of human discrimination here thus elucidates how each and every human person has a contribution to make to the society. It is worthy of note that the person is always either a male or a female. No definition of the human person will afford to ignore the relevance of gender issues to creating an understanding of human nature. In the society we find human persons of disparate gender and affinity. The males have similar features that make them male as do the females. And this forms a basis for arguing that their natures are unique but uniqueness is never reducible to inequality. Hence, where gender disparities are used to form a basis for discrimination it becomes questionable whether the affinities for asserting uniqueness are mistaken for equality. Since, in the society today, gender discrimination has been the most common form of human discrimination, it is to be taken that the society of such discrimination is guilty of mistaking uniqueness for inequality. Every person partaking in the larger social interest requires equal quality of service which society demands of others, hence, that the service done by one, does not make the one who does it more or less favored naturally in society than the other. In other words, there is a collective need of the other in society. And everyone who lives in society expresses in his/her nature that insatiability in what his/her own uniqueness provides. Thus, there is always the need for complementarily since there is still a need for what others produce, which merely one never had the opportunity to provide for oneself. No gender can sufficiently perform all roles in society that is necessary for the society, hence the consequent need to promote the idea of gender equality to rival gender discrimination. 

Sr. Dr. Stella Bassey Esirah HHCJ is a lecturer and Head of Department of Philosophy at St. Joseph Catholic Major Seminary, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State (esirah@hotmail.com).

CAN MAN STAND AS AN OBSTACLE IN GOD’S WAY?

 

CAN MAN STAND AS AN OBSTACLE IN GOD’S WAY?

Stella Bassey Esirah

The rational notion we have about God is that God is an infinite being. By infinity here, we mean that God cannot be put in a relative bracket or that He is absolutely transcendental. But the Christian notion adds a degree of knowledge about God which is immanence and that makes God a subject that could be known to man rationally, by revelation and faith experience.  So the two contexts of references to God must be taken into consideration before attempting to solve the problem as to whether man can be an obstacle to Him.

BUILDING BRIDGES AMONG PEOPLE

BUILDING BRIDGES AMONG PEOPLE

Stella Bassey Esirah  

As we interact with one another in a diverse and growing community, conflict is normally inevitable. The causes of conflicts are as complicated as we human beings. Sometimes, the root cause of a particular conflict is unknown. Any form of conflict makes an unpleasant setting and creates a stage that can propel us to the brink. This is capable of weakening the stability of our corporate existence as peers and colleagues who once lived in peace and harmony.

The human person is endowed with the gift of freedom. This enables us to choose either to be held hostage by the negative pull of conflict, by accepting it and do nothing, or choose to find out a way out, and say yes to intelligent and civil co-existence. At the heart of our ability to recover and learn from conflict, is the value we place on our relationships. Accepting our difference, acknowledging what we have contributed to the conflict and being willing to take responsibility or apologize for what we have done or not done, creates an opportunity for finding common grounds in peace building.

Common grounds enable us to learn how to resolve our differences in a way and manner that respect our individual dignity. Learning how to disagree in a reflective way can raise our consciousness and give us the language to approach conflict as a catalyst to evolve as a community instead of being stagnated by it. Thus, the onus in ensuring an intelligent and civil co-existence lies on everyone. It is through building bridges between people that we can sustain effective working relationships. Let me quickly state that, an individual who builds bridges among people is a mediator. He/she more or less, performs the role of a mediator. Mediation is a confidential and voluntary process providing parties an informal opportunity to resolve or learn how to effectively manage disputes. Disputes are resolved in a timely manner and mediation works because the process.

-                      Encourages parties to collaborate and find common grounds;

-                      Acknowledges and responds to both the objective and subjective factors of a dispute;

-                      Focuses on both the future and the past;

-                      Equalizes power differences

-                      Facilitates creative solutions and agreements acceptable by all parties;

-                      Places the responsibility on the parties to decide the outcome and

-                      Encourages Dialogue

Some roles, a mediator or an individual engaged in building bridges between warring parties include, taking a position of impartiality, having no vested interest in the outcome of a dispute between parties. The mediator as well as the parties can set the ground rules before the process begins. The ground rules are especially important because they establish and identify the expected behavior of all parties. The ground rules set the tone for a productive conversation and opportunity to resolve the conflict.

Another pivotal role of the mediator is to listen and help the parties identify the underlying causes of the conflict and how they would like to resolve or manage it. The agreements and outcome are decided by the parties involved. The role of the mediator is to reduce obstacles to communication, assist in identifying issues, exploring alternatives, facilitating voluntary agreements and resolving the disputes. The ultimate decision making authority rests solely with the participants. A mediator will not determine who is “right” or “wrong.” The mediator must be patient, dignified, and courteous during mediation. The mediator must conduct mediation in an even-handed and balanced manner. The mediator must promote mutual respect among the participants throughout the process and encourage the participants to conduct themselves in a collaborative, non-coercive, and non-adversarial manner.

There are some points or factors that the mediator must necessarily bear in mind as he/she undertakes the role of building bridges between parties:

-                      Listen: By listening, he/she gets to know the root (cause) of the conflict and can offer corresponding solution for effective dialogue.

-                      Emphasize: in order to understand someone else’s feelings especially from past experiences of conflict resolution.

-                      Affirm the situation: No condition is permanent. The mediator should be able to affirm the situation by staying the middle course.

-                      Direct them in such a way that they will be able to negotiate and resolve conflicts in the future.

-                      Refer: Sensitivity, if it is something that cannot be handled, the mediator must immediately refer to a professional.

-                      There must be a level of understanding between the mediator and the parties involved.

We must bear in mind that, the individual’s decision making process is not independent of the standards of the society. That process is usually controlled by what is called mores. These mores are usually ‘unwritten sanctions’ and customs which have emotional glow and  enforces any particular way of life by controlling approvals or disapprovals that are very powerful. Being unwritten, they are simply part of the way we think, and are not easily subject to discussion. And being part of the way we think, they have great emotion and impact on all we see.

The individual's anticipation of the group's approval is the foundation of moral obligation and the approval or disapproval which admits no compromise and therefore no confusion of standards. This means that the purpose of our lives and our decisions is ultimately the salvation of others. Not that we can save them but that they can find ultimate happiness/salvation with the help of our decisions. All true obedience is meant to point to God and this is what a mediator would want to achieve.

In our society today who is a bridge builder or mediator? In our society today, more is said than done. Therefore, a mediator must bear in mind that truth is as clear as a bell if it is proclaimed with courage. What the world today needs is fewer rules and more good examples, since a peaceful and clear conscience is the best sleeping pill (Viktor Emil Frankl). It is imperative that, a bridge-builder, a mediator in conflict resolution should apply the conflict of unconditional love between parties at loggerheads. The love has to be ingrained in the nature of the mediator. This must be portrayed during the cause of conflict resolution to manifest how valuable and therapeutic a well handled situation can be.  

Sr. Dr. Stella Bassey Esirah HHCJ is a Lecturer and Head of Department of Philosophy at St. Joseph Catholic Major Seminary, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State (esirah@hotmail.com)