One of my more lucid memories as a child was when I noticed something peculiar in the middle of a barren portion of my garden. I never noticed it before – I could not make out the shape and it was astonishingly white, which was bizarre. What could this obscure thing jutting out from a grassless portion of the garden be? It certainly was something utterly peculiar. Could it be a rock? I thought not. My mind was telling me it was something else, something more remarkable. My mind was running wild; it was imagining numerous possibilities. This seemingly simple specimen jutting out from an infertile soil could be something big. It could be part of an ancient structure. Or better yet it could be part of a dinosaur bone or some extinct animal. The idea of those possibilities evoked for me so many romantic exploits (of the adventurous kind) most of which I had seen in movies or read in story books.

The wannabe adventurer in me took over and I decided to try to dig it out. Of course, with less than meager digging equipment I never had the chance to fully unearth it (my digging stopped until I reached solid, impenetrable bedrock) and it remained shrouded in mystery. My heart sank and frustration set in. The realization came that I may never know for sure what that thing actually is. I can speculate and assume thousands of different varying assumptions and hypotheses but beyond that, I can prove nothing. If only I had more appropriate excavation equipment, enough to break through the bedrock, I would have learned a lot more about it. But it was quite obvious back then I could do nothing more. I gave up on the dig.

This particular memory to me is significant because, although the “excavation” was for naught, it manifests quite well a trait that is strongly present in me, a trait which I don’t know if most other people possess that is my deep-seated desire to explore and discover. This desire to explore and discover is of course borne out of my longing to learn and understand more about myself, others, and the world around me and this is also something that I find common among philosophers from as ancient as Socrates to as modern as Sartre. That is why I find them intriguing, because I find in them varying answers to the most profound of questions. But like the example of the childhood memory I shared above, many of the answers these philosophers give to questions like “what is the person?” or “why do we exist at all?” are often left in the realm of speculation and hypothesis. And if my childhood memory serves any further metaphor for that then the philosophers’ exploration only ends in frustration for they may never know for certain if what they assert is indeed the “truth.” It seems that beyond certain facts (or “facticities” in our lives, just as I can only describe certain aspects of the peculiar specimen buried in our garden, we may never know anything for sure.

Let’s take the problem surrounding the “self.” It is one of the more enduring mysteries whose answers and explanations many have provided and yet full understanding is still quite elusive. What is the self composed of? How did we come to look and be as such? Theologians would argue that we are made in the very beginning in the image and likeness of God. Evolutionists and Anthropologists would argue that we are a result of millions of years of evolutionary progress from single-celled organisms to monkey-like creatures to the Homo sapiens we are now. Sociologists and postmodernists would argue that we are social constructions, products of social forces. Still others, such as geneticists, would argue that much of who we are was passed on from the genetic make-up of our parents which means that much of our identity can be found in our DNA. The general scientist would define the person as a conglomeration of specific molecules, atoms, cells, chemical reactions, nerve reactions, etc. of which all are conveniently bound by scientific and natural laws.

The plurality of answers, at times compatible with one another and at times contrasting, may boggle my mind, especially the mind that is eager to unearth and discover the actual truth. It seems that within the very contexts of these experts’ explanations they are right in their own way and the only way for them to reach an agreement on the very fundamental meaning of what makes a person a person is simply (or oxymoronically) to agree to disagree.

In our readings and discussions on the philosophy of the person, the issues of the self take on a more metaphysical (as well epistemological, to a lesser extent) spin. It is metaphysical in a sense that it delves deep into the very essence of the self that seeks to go beyond the authoritative confines of science and religion and even challenges some of the very basic assumptions both science and religion assert. Although philosophy is not exactly foolproof in terms of hard evidence, it still provides fresh perspectives to rather common notions we often take fore granted. Socrates himself challenges us to stand up, use reason, question, and examine supposedly common sense beliefs that society has forced us to believe in with the aim of living a better, more fulfilled life. After all, he’s the one who said that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

In today’s world, science takes hold, that is, it dominates most of what we do and what we think of. Anything that is not backed by strong scientific support, people would have a tendency to doubt. Along with this emphasis on science come priorities we give to our sense experiences and empirical evidences. Because of the highly advanced hard evidence science provides, we easily uphold them as the truth. Much of its assertions have entered the realm of common sense beliefs that people hardly ever question, if at all. But then are we totally sure about these common sense beliefs even if they are backed up by scientific evidence? Why don’t we subject these to intellectual scrutiny, just as Socrates did on supposedly common sense beliefs strongly held during his time.

Back to the question on the self; must we accept that we are mere collections of cells, chemical reactions, genetic make-ups, etc? Or is there something deeper, a more profound being within us? Is the fact that we are able to think of these rather abstract things such as the idea of a formless, immaterial self independent of the body proof enough of its very existence? Or is it just mere fantasy and that this higher level of being, beyond natural laws, is purely illusory? Or perhaps, science itself may be the very illusion and that our immaterial selves can break free from its relentless clutch? It may be of interest for us to look at some philosophers’ assertions on these questions.

Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, is famous for his universal methodic doubting of basic assumptions such as those given to him by the senses. As a result, he came up with the mind-body dualism where the mind (the thinking, immaterial self) is superior to the body (which is dominated by our senses). He also tells of the metaphor of an “evil genius” who has created an illusory external world that misleads us to believing that we have a physical body that experiences bodily sensations. Descartes asserts that our true self is a formless, immaterial entity that is the mind or the thinking self. This assertion is summarized in his most famous axiom, cogito ergo sum or “I think therefore I am (or exist).”

Moreover, some philosophers think that the essence of the self may be found in one’s consciousness or in John Locke’s view, the continuity of one’s memory. Although our body constantly grows and regenerates and our perceptions, beliefs, desires change every now and then, the one thing that keeps our identity and selfhood intact is our memory and self-consciousness. In short, although found in different times and places with different perceptions and appearances (in that we grow old) the self may be found in the same thinking and self-conscious person with a continuous memory.

There are many problems that arise from both Rene Descartes as well as John Locke’s ideas. In Descartes’ case, have we actually discovered this immaterial self that is separate from our bodies? What is it that we shall experience if we don’t have a body to experience it with? Has someone actually experienced being outside his or her body? (Some may have claimed that they have experienced this though this still remains in the realm of the paranormal along with UFOs and Yetis) Is this thinking entity the very thing that we often refer to as our souls? If so, has anyone proven its existence beyond our assumptions? Does it have a life of its own? Is it immortal? The many questions arising from Descartes’ ideas only seem to compound the problem of the self all the more (although it does illuminate some pressing concerns we may have with it).

In John Locke’s case, if the self is found in one’s memory and self-consciousness, how should we consider lapses in those such as comatose, amnesia, Alzheimer’s disease, our early childhood ages, and basically conditions where one’s memories and consciousness are lacking? Can we consider their identity and selfhood dead? In the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, when the main characters had memories of their past relationships deliberately erased, they experience a sort of tragedy and utter emptiness associated with not knowing what happened to them before. In a way, the film affirms the significance of memory in one’s selfhood but the question remains, is memory the most important, the least important, or perhaps even the only component one finds in the self?

Now let us consider the other side of the philosophical spectrum on the problem of the self. After speaking of minds, memories, and consciousness, let us be more tangible and down-to-earth. There is no doubt that in the here and the now, our sense experiences govern our lives. The self that we are most aware of is our physical selves. Why not then do we give importance to it? Maybe it is the only thing we may have to know about the self.

Among philosophers, probably the most influential proponent of the importance of sensory experience is David Hume and his philosophy of empiricism. According to Hume and other empiricists, what counts most about the self is the self that experiences the material world and perceptions that we form through the use of our senses. Empirically, everything that we know and can ever know can only be derived from our senses and that there is no such thing as ideas that form innately, outside of our sense experiences. It is through this assumption that much of our scientific knowledge has come to be known.

Regarding the self, to Hume and empiricists, one can find the self in the cluster of perceptions one makes derived from one’s own sensory experiences. These perceptions derived from one’s sensory experience and awareness of the outside world form a self that is constant and enduring through interconnections made between and among these perceptions. Consciousness is thus a system of various perceptions that we relate and link together based on what we constantly experience in the outside world. Hume explained it best by saying, “for my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I can never catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception.”

The physical and material world is something we humans refer to strongly. The growth of science only seems to bolster its significance. But what do we make of our selves when our physical bodies expire? Will our selves disappear into nothingness? And going back to Descartes, what if all these (sense experiences) are mere elaborate illusions? Is what appears before us according to our senses actual reality or is reality something far deeper? Also, what do we make of discrepancies or illusions between our senses and actual fact such as the earth rotating and yet we don’t feel ourselves moving as well as the earth revolving around the sun although our senses tell us that it is the sun revolving around us? In these cases, our senses seem to fail and even deceive us. There is also the problem of ideas that seem to be conceived solely from our minds and reasoning and not from the senses themselves such as the idea of the soul. It seems that these questions bring us back to the importance of the existence of a formless, immaterial mind that Descartes has suggested all this time.

Another issue with huge implications on the self is the issue of free will and control. Again, science plays a huge role in this issue (this applies not just to the natural sciences but also largely on the social sciences). Practically all scientific pursuits seek to explain us and the world around us. How do we fall in love? How much of us are derived from our parents? How much of our traits are acquired from social forces? Why do we act the way we do? How do we make decisions? All of these seek to determine certain aspects that add to our understanding on the nature of humans. By trying to determine how we work, we are, in effect, trying to put ourselves in a deterministic mold in which our ability to control and affirm our freedom are tremendously reduced. By defining what human nature is, we run the danger of boxing ourselves in and subjecting ourselves to these natural and social laws.

Science and determinism aside, another aspect that seems to diminish our freedom, or sense of it, is religion and the general belief in fate. Most major religions believe in an omniscient, all-knowing God. By that, we can safely assume that this higher being knows all past, present, and future and if these are already known by this higher being then all our choices (from the once we have already decided to those we are still contemplating on) seem to have been already pre-ordained by the cosmos. As such, freedom can be seen as something that is purely illusory. We don’t even have to believe in a single deity to express our belief in fatalism. The oft-used Filipino catchphrase bahala na reflects our cultural attachment as a people to the dictates of fate.

In general, by arguing that the person has a certain essence or nature that precedes his or her existence, one is arguing for determinism and consequently, lack of freedom. It does not matter what essence or nature one may argue; Descartes insists on the rationality of man, Freud argues that man is a sexual being and that most of what we do, think, and feel is dictated by the unconscious, theologists would assert that man is innately good and is created in God’s image and likeness, geneticists would say that we are products of both our parents’ genes, postmodernists see man as a social construct. All of these offer differing perspectives yet they assert the same deterministic view of the lack of freedom.

However, there are some philosophers who have argued otherwise and as a consequence have acquired some notoriety of their own right. According to them, the equation of essence precedes existence is totally false and in fact should be the other way around, existence precedes essence. The most notable proponent of this is the atheist and existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. According to him, man first comes into being then asserts himself and creates meaning for himself through his actions. Instead of beginning from a defined, objective definition, the person begins in the subjective. It is only through one’s actions that the person may achieve his or her own essence. To Sartre, it does not matter what one looks like or what one’s skin color is or who one’s parents are. Those are mere “facticities” to which one is born with. Those “facticities” aside, one is a totally free agent (there exists total freedom but not absolute freedom due to those “facticities”, one is even free to change some of these “facticities.” Sartre states that “man is still to be determined.” Thus, each and every person is tasked to invent his or her own self that is found only in his or her actions. A loser is made a loser through his or her actions and not because of he or she is by nature, or some other deterministic factor, a loser.

What does science have to say about this existentialist argument that departs radically from the premise of human nature? Well, nothing… as of yet. Science, with its objective of explaining us and the world around us, can do little or perhaps nothing at all to prove the existence of free will. How can science support existentialism and free will if in the first place existentialism does away with any pre-supposed, objective assumptions and explanations about the self? It may take some quantum leap in human understanding for us to prove the existence of total free will outside of philosophical conjectures.

There are many more issues and questions that one can ponder on regarding the self that are seemingly as endless as a stream of water on a riverbed. With all the themes, issues, and philosophers stated above, how can one consider all of these and gain a fuller understanding of the self? For this I shall try to synthesize these ideas by employing Hegel’s dialectics (of achieving synthesis by considering both thesis and anti-thesis arguments).

On the mind-body problem of the self, one may consider that both are indeed important. We believe that there is some conscious and rational, even intangible, being residing within our physical selves and yet we certainly cannot fathom ourselves without a body. The two must probably work together as essential components to form the self.

On the question of freedom and control, although we seek to explain ourselves through science and religion, we still experience with undeniable certainty this feeling of freedom to choose and decide our own destiny. Perhaps we may have this human nature after all but then we may be able to transcend this and achieve a higher form of existence and meaning for ourselves through the actions and decisions that we make.

The different issues surrounding the self is still not a closed book as of yet. And I am quite aware that my syntheses are running the danger of being compatibilist in nature and even resorting to concessions among contrasting ideas. In the end, although I arrived no closer at an apparent conclusion on issues about the self, at least I somehow arrived at a deeper understanding of it. The important thing is I opened myself to different perspectives that may help illuminate the mysteries behind the self. I may have scraped just the tip of the iceberg and there are plenty more answers and ideas to explore. Although in finding the self, I focused only on Western thought, I also find Eastern philosophy quite intriguing, inviting even. I am very much interested in what Buddhism, Taoism, and other Eastern philosophies have to say about the self.

Now that I am in my young adulthood stage in life, I believe that I am more equipped than ever before in venturing out and exploring our world, both tangible and intangible. Unlike the little kid in my memory who got frustrated for not completely excavating the peculiar specimen from my garden, I know full well now that the very act of exploring and trying to discover is well worth the effort. In trying to unearth ideas about the self, I am certain that I will arrive at becoming a better person with a better understanding of the self and the many issues surrounding it. And if I may propose my own concept of the human condition that may well be present since I was a kid (as well as since man learned to think differently from animals) – it is his (or her) eternal desire and ambition to explore and discover more about the self.

Going back to Socrates, we may learn from his example as he told his fellow Athenians this: "I desire only to know the truth and to live as well as I can... And, to the utmost of my power, I exhort all other men to do the same... I exhort you also to take part in the great combat, which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly conflict.” With that, I exhort myself and others too to embark on some “self-searching” of our own.