In this paper of mine, I combined different theories of philosophers which I think I can relate to the rise of Computer Mediated Communications (CMCs). These theories are Levinas’ “Facing the Face”, Harraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto” and Heidegger’s “Mitsein.” As we can see nowadays, almost all of us be it from a rich, poor or from the middle class have our own “personal/identity account” in any of the CMCs most especially in the Facebook. Our purpose is of course to socialize with other people around the world, our friends, our families, and our special someone and some, for business purposes. Our technology in the present is really advanced and continues to advance. We are living in a highly technologized and digitalized world. As what I have learned from Karl Popper’s “Falsification”, technology must advance (improve). We cannot stop the improvements happening in Science and Technology because it is their very nature. This is related to the cycle of the “geist” (thesis and anti-thesis.) Without this cycle, there is no history. Like History, there is a movement in technology. And so, if you create new gadgets now, later it will advance and evolve to a gadget which has more features and functions, making it more attractive and more useful and capable of doing different tasks. That is why life becomes simpler nowadays because of what the technology offers us. Technology makes life easier and convenient. It’s really easy now to communicate with our loved ones, family and friends through the use of cellphone, telephone, e-mail, fax and CMCs. Technologies can help us in our way of life but most of the time nowadays, if we cannot use it properly and with discipline, we end up in being controlled by it.

The first philosopher which I can relate to the rise CMCs especially the Facebook is Heidegger. I would like to relate it in his “Mitsein.” “Mitsein” is “being-with.” This kind of theory is first and foremost relational. “To be with” needs an Other. In being with the Other, relationship starts. We cannot achieve “Mitsein” without the Other. I just put in my title “Being-with-the-machine” because what I would like to emphasize first is, with the help of technology (machines, gadgets), we can be with the Other. What I really mean is that, we can be with the Other using the machines, gadgets and CMCs (half true.) This being with the Other is not personal but impersonal. We are with the Other only in the virtual world. What I am trying to say is that, we use technology to be with the Other even though it is only impersonal. Yes we become less human but here we can see that we want to continue the relationship with the Other even though we are away from each other. We can see that our “care” for the Other is still there because even though we are geographically away, there is inside us that we want to continue and secure the relationship. It is all because we are relational in nature. E-mails and cellphones were created so that relationships are monitored and care can be expressed to the Other even though we are both far from one another. Here we can see the positive side of CMCs in us in relation to our being relational beings. The problem here is that, the real body of the Other is not present. It is really different if we communicate to the Other facing each other. Presence of the body has a different flavor than virtual presence only in communication.

The second philosopher which I can relate to the rise CMCs especially the Facebook is Harraway. Harraway’s philosophy is about “Biopolitics” and “Cyborg Manifesto” but I will focus more on “Cyborg Manifesto.” “Cyborg Manifesto” is the heralding of the coming of the “cyborgs.” Cyborgs are half-human half-machine. Before, it was just a manifestation of something not real but these days, we can say that cyborgs already exist. Our Facebook accounts are one of the best examples of cyborgs. They are cyborgs because we humans are operating our account (half-human) and we have these accounts through the help of technology (half-machine.)  Our accounts are our identity in the virtual world. We relate to others in virtual worlds using our account/s. In looking at Harraway’s philosophy, it is as if we become less human if we use technology. Yes she has a point. Technology alone is not human. It is just a tool or machines which makes our life easier. If we are over exposed with it, we become less relational. Look at the Facebook addict people, sometimes they spend more than half of the day in checking their accounts and their messages. They entertain their selves facing the computer almost half of the day. Worst if, they would spend more than sixteen hours in facing the computer and being on Facebook.. It’s not good anymore because it is addiction. We can use Facebook with good purposes but too much of something is not good for us. First, it is bad for our health because of the radiation we can get in facing the computer. Second, we become less relational because we choose to spend our day facing the machine (computer, and other gadgets) rather than humans. Third, we go out of the real world and we enter to the virtual world where in true relationship does not exist. That is why, we really need Social Philosophy because of the problems about depersonalization, virtual presence and individual ethos.

Another famous philosopher which I can relate to the rise of CMCs especially the Facebook is Levinas. Levinas’ theory is about the “face.” In his theory, the “face” is a structure of relationship which happens at the time of “facing.” This “face” of the Other tells us “be for me.” Our “face” tells the Other too “be for me.” Our choices are to be for him or not for him. If we are for him, we become social and relational. If we are not for him, we deny our very self as relational beings for it is human’s nature to be in relation with others. And so, we can say that being relational means we are for the Other and for the Other to be relational, the Other must be for us. If we accept that we are for the Other, responsibility comes next. Being responsible of the Other means being accountable of him/her. We are accountable of the Other whatever happens to him/her. Because we cannot “define” Other’s eidos as what Husserl’s reduction would suggest, we cannot “define” the limits of our responsibility. With this, we can say that we are infinitely responsible of the Other.  That is why if we see the Other in need, we must help him/her. He/she is begging “be for me.” And so, we must help the face we are facing because he/she needs help. If we see our brothers in the community doing bad/evil things, we have the responsibility to correct him/her. Someday if we will become priests, we are expected to react against evil if we see it. In seeing evil, we must not keep quiet. We must stop it.  In doing this, we make the Other see that we are concerned and have care to him/her. In relation to Facebook, can we say that we “face” the “face” of the Other through the Facebook? Does the Other still have a “face” in the virtual world? Is there such a thing as “Infinite Responsibility” in the virtual world? For me, to be in the virtual world makes us cyborgs (half-human, half-machine.) Even though we become half-human, half-machines in the virtual world, I can say that we still have the “face” and the Other has a “face” to face us. We can say that we still have a face in the virtual world because behind these cyborgs are the part of us as being relational. We humans are relational beings and we are the ones who are controlling our account/s Most of us created Facebook account for the purpose of being related to Other people which are really related in our personal life. And so, there is still a relationship happening (half true- because real relationships happens not in the virtual world.) Because there is still “face” in the virtual world, there must still be “Infinite Responsibility” to the Other. Because the “face” we face in the virtual world are cyborgs, we have the “Infinite Responsibility” to them. For example, if we see other cyborgs doing bad things in the virtual world specifically posting bad comments on others, we have the responsibility to correct him/her about his/her wrong doings. As cyborgs in the virtual world, it is our responsibility to correct other cyborgs doing bad in the virtual world. Behind these cyborgs are humans that are in nature relational.

As a conclusion, “being-with-the-machine” or specifically, to be with the computer to log on to Facebook with the purpose of being updated and to communicate and connect with our friends, family and loved ones (“facing the cyborgs”) comes the “infinite responsibility” with the other cyborgs in virtual world. Here we can see that there is still a structure of relationship in the virtual world (half true.) As cyborgs, the key for us not to be truly machines is “moderation.” In our engagement with cyborgs, machines and CMCs, we should be the ones to control them. We must never allow them to control us. Making technology controlling us is not the fault of technology but the fault of the human using it. If technology controls us, not us controlling technology, we become pure machines for we live a life of individual ethos living in the virtual world which is depersonal. 

Man was truly blessed, because God gave him sufficient knowledge so that he can rule all things all over the earth. God gave him knowledge so that he can make wise decisions, he can be a good steward of all creations, and he can create things that can preserve his life and make it more meaningful. Thus man was able to explore things around him and have found things which will be meaningful to him.

Technology plays a great role in our world nowadays. Why? It is because technology brought us to another phase of life wherein everything goes faster, causes too much convenience on our part, and giving us less work but more time for enjoyment. The number one thing that our technology has developed very well is our source of communication. Why is this so? Communication is easily overlooked, but the ability to communicate effectively is necessary to carry out the thoughts and visions of an organization to the people. The importance of speech and words whether through a paper or a voice is a communication medium to convey directions and provide synchronization. Without communication, there is no way to express thoughts, ideas and feelings. That’s why technology provided us the tools that are powerful in terms of communication like: phone, fax, email, letter, website, instant message softwares, social networking websites, and the most popular, Facebook.

Yes, we can say that communication is very important in every aspect of our life, because it helps us to link with the wider world of information and in the world. It also links us to other people all around the world and enables us to have a good relationship with them. But is there really a true relationship that is happening in the world of the facebook? Facebook is a world which is composed also of different worlds (users), but it only exists in the world of computer. It is totally different from the real world. Why? It is because in the world of facebook we can fake almost everything. We can make our ideal world for our own sake and we can make our new ego while hiding the true one. In facebook we are free to add any sort of information about ourselves, whether it is true or not, because we are confident that nobody will correct us, since they don’t know our true identity. And if this is the case, if this is how we are engaging from one another, what kind of relationship can we develop out of this idea of the reality that is usually happening in the facebook? Can we develop a true “human relationship” through this, since relationship only happens when there is actual presence and truthfulness in one another?

Max Scheler, on his theory of Person and Community describes that “Person” is universal. Therefore, by the term itself it is grounded to others or the community. For Scheler, the nature of person is always “communal” and he can never separate his self from the community because the community is already part of its essence. If we are going to apply the theory of Scheler from the world of facebook, we can say that the characters or the users from the facebook are indeed “Pesons” also, because they communicate and engaging from one another. The facebook serves as their ground of encounter, wherein they communicate from one another in a manner that they are just communicating in the real world. But according to Levinas, relationship has its own framework or structure that can only happen at the time of contact (facing the Other); facing the “totality” of the Other, which means facing the “being” of the Others (the body, manner, character, etc.). So it is not only facing the body that appears on the monitor of the computer. “Facing” is more important than in the facebook communication, because Facing is a responsibility of every person and it is through Facing that we can know the human existence of the Other. If we answer to this call (Facing), the moral person we become, but if we deny it the immoral person we become. Our identity from the others would sometimes depend on the memory that we have shared to them. The more memories that we shared, the deeper our relationship goes. But if there’s a problem in our memory, it can affect our identity, and having problems with our identity could also affect the relationships that we have. That’s why facebook as part only of computer world, it can’t give us a “settled relationship” because we are free to change our identity in anytime that we want. And since it only exists in the world of computer and not in the real world, there is a great tendency that it can be deleted, whether accidentally or not, because the world of facebook is only temporary and it has its own expiration. Therefore when your account does not functioning already, everything that you have in your account will be useless and your identity and all the relationships that you have will also vanish, because your identity depends on what you have put in your account. If your account is not functioning, you will not be capable of engaging with the others. Your memory will be lost and you’ll become nothing. Unlike in the real world, we can say that our relationship can be stable and there is no tendency for it to be erased, because our relationship in the real world is grounded in reality and it is not simply a computer program. Therefore it goes along with our existence in this world. As long as we are existing we are capable of having relationship and there is the tendency that our memory will last even until our end.

Facebook is a social networking which provides us a path to communicate to other people and to make friends with them. But an acquainted relationship, which we can only have in the real world, is much better. Why? Simply because it is so nice to make friends with other people facing their true beings, when there is a body contact. Compared to seeing only or communicating with them in the wide screen. For it is in the real world that we can attain a true and settled kind of relationship, which is moral and making us true human beings.

We are in a fast changing world. We are living in a highly modernized way of life. Nowadays, there are lots of highly advanced technologies being invented brought about by modern man. High technology is the trend of today’s generation. Probably, these fast and continued developments in technology would really invade and control human lives. This advancement of technology will strongly and powerfully influenced and changed the way we live. Indeed, advancement has made our life easier and more convenient. However, this may also destroy and shape our lives.

Our means of communication or interaction to one another is one of the most very obvious aspects of our life that transformed a lot. Many new inventions are being produced to make communication process more convenient and faster like telephone and mobile phone. And the greatest discovery that shifts and creates a new breed of social relationship is the internet wherein various social networking websites are created and offered like MySpace, Friendster, Twitter, Blogs, and Youtube. And the most popular social website used by millions of people around the world is the Facebook. By the rise of social networks especially of the Facebook, the social lives of modern individuals shift. There is already acquired new breed and dimension of human relationship. Many are engage and addicted to Facebook because it offers an easiest and fastest way to communicate and interact with others especially with your families, friends and special someone. Because of Facebook, long lost friends find each other again, families who are away from each other get updates every now and then and new friendship and relationships blossom too. The success of social networks particularly of Facebook lies in the simplicity and convenience it provides for the users.

On the other hand, if we examine and observe the true impact of Facebook in the society, it is destroying social relationships. Facebook addiction turns us not so social. It loses contacts with others and fails to keep friendships alive. Words alone cannot describe us clearly and visibly. It does not help us make more genuine close friends, because it changes the nature of friendship. Instead of asking your friend or someone out for coffee, it is really possible that it might turn in Facebook instead. We see many people with hundreds or even thousands of friends in Facebook, but how well and deep do those persons know each other. Posting pictures and information about you and chatting are not enough to know well each other and to develop a stronger social relationship. I believe, this can end good social relationship and the skill of forming friendship since our focus is on how well our page looks rather than how much we know and keep with friends. We have to remember that it is very easy to be deceptive on the Facebook,

Face to face contact is the best way for us to develop and build stronger social relationships. Because the more we interact and communicate face to face to one another, the more the intimate, healthier and closer our bond with each other. Although, Facebook helps us collect hundreds or even thousands of acquaintances, face to face contact is always necessary to form truly close social relationships. Face to face contact is more meaningful and truthful, because there is an eye contact. You can see and feel their true facial expressions, emotions, gestures, postures and the tone of their voice. In a face to face contact, you can really share and say what you really want to express. You can really listen and comforts others if they are in despair. You can really make decisions and solve problems. You can really build a true community.

Social relationship through Facebook is closely related and applicable to Levinas’ Theory on “The Face” and “The Other”.  This theory tells us about the relationship between the “Face” and the “Other”, wherein the “Other” refers to the other person, someone else, whoever it is, that each of us encounters directly or experiences, while the “Face” refers to human face, a living presence; it is expression and it speaks to me and thereby invites me to a relation, and it is always begging “be for me”. The “Face” is the structure of relationship which may only happen at the times of contact to the “Other”. It means the totality of the being of the “Other”, The “Face”, which refers to the Other’s whole body, thoughts, actions, manners, character, values, spirituality and many more. The “Face” is making us social. It allows us to connect to one another. We exist and related to everyone. Sociality is a kind of essential facing. It simply shows that human existence is facing the face of the “Other”. If you don’t do that, you do not exist, you are not human. We are relational or social beings, so we have to be with the others always. The ‘Face’ is always “be for you” and “be for me”.

A Facebook is not the best way for us to be with the “Others” or facing the face of the “Others”. The “Face” which is a structure of relationship could not be possible to happen if we are interacting and facing through this social network, for the real essence and fundamental nature of relating is a face to face contact with the “Others”. In order for us to know well the Others’ true personality, emotions, expressions, values, manners and spirituality, we have to relate and interact with them face to face. On the other hand, we cannot surely know and get in touch with the “Others” because we are not facing and experiencing the “Others” directly and personally instead we are facing a digitalized and computerized “Other”. We are all human beings and as relational beings, we have to relate with real and true human beings also and not with a kind of machine or digitalized individuals.

Social relationship through Facebook can also be applied to Max Scheler’s theory on Person and Community. It tells us about a person as communal in nature. He is a relational and social being. He can never separate himself in the community, because the community is part of his essence and existence. And at the same time, part of community’s essence is from the person. They are correlation. However, in my own understanding and analysis, relating this to Facebook as a social network, the Facebook makes the person go away, live alone and go against with the community. Because, the person chooses to interact and communicate with others through a digitalized computer rather than to mingle and join on a direct or face to face contact with them. By this, he will never know and find his real existence and being. I have also realized that Facebook does not create and build a community. Eventhough Facebook held people  together by pre-established interpersonal relationships, still it does not build a community because the engagement tends to be immediate, light and fleeting. It is impossible for them to make community because they are not living together. A true meaning of a true community is that, it is much longer term and involves fostering and nurturing a group of people who share a common interest. People are relating with one another directly and face to face interaction. And of course the persons living in a community are true human beings and not visualized persons. Persons in a community are directly talking, sharing, enjoying, laughing and helping with one another. It does not save the community but destroys it for it does not enhance and supplement real social relationship. It is a dangerous addiction that compels people to withdraw from reality and prevents them from developing social skills. Thus, Facebook is not good for building a stronger and healthier human social relationship.

A paper on Heidegger’s “mitsein” and Levinas’ “the face.”

The world nowadays is very open to changes that the technology offers. The evolution of world’s adaptation to the present time is rapid that in every moment or even every second there are things created and improved. Language, communication, industries, agriculture, and transportation are the elements in the world that affect the lives of the people. Living in the world where all aspects of life are rapidly dynamic and unending changes can create unfocused, restless, and being unaware of the things that are important in social aspects of life.

Communication is one of the elements of the world that was highly developed and affected by the great evolution of technology. It is the communication that can make people be with each other and face each other’s body. Being humans, we are given by God the responsibility to create relationships in physical and communicative ways. There are many kinds of communication and it is a process, communication may be verbal, written or through signs, emotions can give realistic and relational meanings to the people who are communicating. Facebook is one of the computer mediated communications, where through the use of a computer connected through the internet even how far around the earth a person is he/she can connect to the other on the other side. The connection of people using the face book is in the internet that the internet passes the message of the person typing on the commuter and being read by the recipient in return the recipient types his/her feedback of message to the giver of the message. Facebook has also an application where pictures and videos can be posted and uploaded in the internet that the people connected through it can see each other picture. Thus face book have bad effects, especially in relationships, in the real presence of the people in communication, and physically connectedness of people with each other.

Heidegger’s philosophy “Mitsein,” or “being with” focused in the being together of people. “Mitsein” is a verb, an act that should be acted, the being with each other of a person to another person.  The subject must act considering the presence others. It is a task of a person to be with others for his/her life and the lives of others are revolving on one world. Relationship develops in the “mitsein” physical and active presence is very important in “mitsein”. A person cannot totally separate itself to others except though death. In communication in the philosophy of Heidegger “mitsein” or being with, physical and person to person relationship is every important. Thus facebook as a CMC does not promote a physical and relational relation to people communicating with each other. Facebook only promotes a person to computer engagement. Even though that a person connects to the other side of the world with another person, physical presence of each other is missing. Facebook does not promote intimate and emotional relationships, facebook when used as medium of communication, it does not portray the real feelings and emotions of the persons communicating with each other. How can person act as being with if the other that should be present is not directly present for only the internet and the computer are the medium of connection in communication.

Levinas, in his philosophy “the face” would like to show the importance of the other as totally other. This totally other means that the “other” is an “alien” a separate being from me but we are the same as human beings. The body of the other is solely existing, yet we exist for each other. “The face” is the one that is a very important variable in the communication process in creating relationship. “The face” does not only mean that in communion, the face to face experience is needed, but in the “face” of Levinas  face means that the whole personality of a person is being counted as person to person communication. In the “face” there is also what Levinas called infinite responsibility. Infinite responsibility of a person means that in the time a person meets the other as “the face” he has the responsibility to answer the call to be with that person. The least as person could give in the “face” for Levinas is the offering of his/hers presence to the “face” of the other. Facing the other as “the face,” the responsibility is always calling for presence as if begging ‘be for me” or helping others in their problems. In answering the others “face” a person who engages his/her self to offer or answering even only in mere presence, the person who answered is moral and had done a moral act. The alien or the totally other the others are, the great responsibility the “face” is asking, and infinite responsibility follows, the more alien others are the more responsibility we have to answer the “face” and to know more others. Being human we have the infinite responsibility to others in creating relationships and to relate to each other, and if we simply do not exercise our being humans. In facebook it does not give space to a communicative relationship as “face” to “face” relationship. How can a person could practise his/her infinite relationship to the “face” if they do not communicate even face to face.

Thus face book is not at all a good source of communication in the social relational and responsible relationship. It does not promote “face” to “face” communication and does not experiencing others physical presence. How can we be a community in communication without “being with” and the “face” of the other? We must communicate to other human through a human to human relationship as an experience of our being human in humanity.

Edmund Husserl is the one who developed the philosophical method called Phenomenology. He tried to connect it in all other sciences. He also continued Descartes’ Cartesian Meditation. Descartes had a problem in bridging the subject to the object. Husserl solved it with his Theory of Intentionality.

If Descartes problem is the veracity of God, Husserl’s problem is the veracity of the other.  He has three solutions to solve this problem and these are pairing, concordant behavior and free variation wherein he favored most in pairing. In pairing, my Body is Leib for me while others’ bodies are korper. For the Other, a subject just like me but other than me, his Body is Leib for him and mine is korper. Both our bodies are Leib and korper. Pairing, empathy, and appresentation supports the theory of intersubjectivity, a theory that says all subjects are connected. We are different subjects but we are all interconnected. When there are acts of empathy, intersubjectivity comes in. Emphatic experiences are intersubjective experiences. Both of them correlate.

We are all egos and what is so common in us is that we are different. We have different worlds. The number of egos is the number of different worlds (subjective). For Husserl, we are monads. A monad is an independent, self-sufficient, and a being that is equated to “I and my world.” The problem with this is the objectivity of the world. If I have my world and others have theirs too, what is the objective world? This can only be achieved both by the point of view of the ego and other egos. Others’ point of view is needed for the objectivity of the world. With the ego’s point of view alone, it will only be subjective. Being a monad (I and my world) is leading to solipsism (I alone exist). That is why the objectivity of the world must be settled. In order to settle this, we need other subjects. Being a monad (I and my world) is going out of human’s nature as being social. As subjects, we need other subjects. That is why we need others’ existence. Without them, we will feel lonely. Community is not an option, it’s a need. For me, without others, it will be impossible to live. Maybe we will become crazy and fool. As subjects, we must be social not monads.

In the start of Cartesian Meditation, Husserl’s problem is the veracity of the Other. In the fifth meditation, he proved that other egos exist. With these, it is clear that we are not to be monads and solipsistic. We are persons in nature and persons are communal beings. Now that the problem with the Other is solved, Husserl still has the problem which is ending up to solipsism and becoming monad. If we review Husserl, he is also known in his transcendental intersubjectivity. In this process, the subject who is in the natural attitude, who is in the pre-reflective life world, and who has pre-reflective consciousness while undergoing transcendental reduction will end up in being in the transcendental attitude. If the subject is already in the transcendental attitude, he can only be a monad. If he stops the reduction, he goes back to his natural attitude and in going back to it, his consciousness is the post-reflective consciousness. His natural attitude is different from his old natural attitude. The problem with Husserl and most of the philosophers after undergoing this process is that they forget their pre-reflective consciousness. After reaching transcendental attitude, and in returning to his natural attitude, he cannot recover his pre-reflective consciousness which if we look at, has a big role in going down to the perspective of ordinary people. Without it, the ego cannot go down to the level of others wherein he also came from. He only considers his point of view and perspective. Let us take into example, a teacher giving an exam to his students about the things that only the teacher knows and things where in he has never discussed to his students. How can the students answer it correctly without undergoing the process of being taught about those things which are the content of the exam? The students cannot answer because they are left behind. The teacher can answer it but in answering it, the students will not understand why it is the answer. In order to solve this problem, we will use the solution of Fr. Domingo to this problem which is called “eduction.” Eduction is the going back of the ego to the lower level which is also the ego’s orientation or where “I” came from and lead them to “I’s” phenomenological perspective. Let us always remember that a good phenomenologist is the understanding one, the one who takes the perspective of ordinary people as important as his phenomenological perspective. With that, ordinary people will see that their views are included to us phenomenologists. And so, sociality happens. For example, I am a philosopher-teacher who knows a lot in philosophy. If I discussed using the language of philosophy that I alone can understand without minding that my students can’t understand my lesson, they will not learn. In order for them to learn, the correct approach is that as a teacher, I will go down to their level of understanding and explain to them well what I mean. It is just my guidance to them that will lead them to understand what I mean. In this situation, relationship happens and I as subject have brought my students to my level of understanding. It is just like saying to my students “I know where you are coming from. I was there before. I experienced how hard it is.” On the part of the student they will say “This person is advance but by his advancements he still understands us. He is just like us. Our idea is under him. Hopefully he can teach us.” With this, I as a subject become more a person and social being. I as a monad, opening my windows to others, now become a person. Every person is communal. It is the thickest constitution. The more we become a person, we become less precise because not all of us reach the level of understanding that I have (as a phenomenologist for example), but the less we become a monad, the more we become social and communal and the more we become thicker. On the other hand, if we become a monad, the more we become ideal, the more we become precise but the more we become thinner. Which will you prefer, the thin one, or the thick one?

As a conclusion, we should recover our pre-reflective consciousness after stopping reduction and returning to the natural attitude. Our post-reflective consciousness cannot be understood by the ones who are still in the level of pre-reflective consciousness. And so, speaking to them what we have achieved in the post-reflective consciousness is useless if they cannot understand. In order for them to understand it, we should go back to their level of thinking by recovering the pre-reflective consciousness while still maintaining the post-reflective consciousness. In that way, we still maintain the preciseness and we are leading them to be also precise. As a whole we become less precise because most us is still in the pre-reflective consciousness. And so, it is our “self-responsibility” to teach them and lead them to be precise. In that way, we become thicker and more social. If we lead them already to the preciseness of our post-reflective consciousness, we reach the end point which is the “social responsibility.” It is being responsible as a community to lead other communities who are still in the pre-reflective consciousness to the post-reflective consciousness. With that, we become thicker and more social.

In this time of the world where it is full of people that are living in a space in the world, many are striving to survive the course of time. There are people that are thinking of their own selves, beings that think only of what is good for their self without thinking of others, as long as they are happy surviving in their own benefit. Morality is slowly being destroyed by these beings, where individuality and survivability is the test of the life. The being that cannot stand on his own is a failure, and will not survive the test of life as the survival of the fittest. This kind of mentality does not differ from of animals. The technology and its negative approach to communication of people, where physical and real connection of the persons who are conversing was turned in to cyber communication. The true meaning of communication is the communion itself of two persons. Communication as person to person communion is the exchange of idea, information, and understanding with the accompaniment of emotions of happiness, sadness and many more. I will tackle in this pare about the philosophy of Max Scheler on the concept of person as Ground for community with a little connection to Kant’s Thing in Itself as applied in the priest hood.

The concept of Max Scheler on Person as Ground for Community tells that the person is always bound to experience, thus others are bound being experienced by the person. It is where all our experiences happened, and in every experience a person is experiencing acts are always present and a priori. A person is continuously acts and these acts depict the person who is acting. Through the acts the existence of a person becomes clear and it makes him/her more person.

The existence of a person can be clarified through actions, and what kind of person he/she is, as act reveals the person.

Every person is unique in his/her different ways, but not only a single person is being tackled here, for the word person in personhood itself is a relational term. Person cannot separate him/her self to others called community. Person is always communal, and with acts that are imbedded in every unique person in the community will create a communal act if united are they. Thus moral act of all person in the community, the moral will the community be, and communion will happened. As like what Scheler said “a person is in the community and the community is in the person.” Kant’s theory of thing in itself if connected to Scheler’s is like this; in the phenomena there will be a noumena which is the thing in itself that is in the realm of ideas. If this theory will applied to a person, the physical body of a person is the phenomena and the personhood of the person is the noumena.

The theory of Scheler and Kant can be applied in the priest hood as Scheler will explain a person, so does a priest will be tackled in this paper be. How a priest as a person connected to other priest? What is the connection of priests to priesthood?, as how Kant would understood. How will a priest be a priest as he always carry other priest where ever he may go, so as other priests will do,? And what is the effect of a single person as a priest to the community of priests?

A person as a priest is bound with his community of priests. Any where a priest will go or whatever a priest will do his brothers or the community of priests, always carried by him. The acts of a priest will always be acts of all the priests, for a priest is in the community always of priests, and the community of priests is always in a priest. If the priest is morally upright and humble kind of priest, then the community of priest may be morally upright and humble as community of priests will they be, in the communion of priests. In Kant’s theory of the thing in itself would cite that the phenomena that is physically present in the world is the existence of the priest. Thus the noumena is the priesthood itself that is in the world of ideas. We cannot know the noumena without the phenomena. Thus we cannot know what is the essence of priesthood without the physical presence of a priest, that will depict priesthood. These two is different from each other. The priest as the phenomena is being driven by his priesthood as the noumena, where through acts noumena will be revealed.


The priesthood of a priest is very significant to his being a priest, that a single priest should be a good person so will as a good priest and with that he carries the whole community of priests. This is very true here in the Philippines one of the great controversies is the donation of SUV’s given by the PCSO to Cotabato Arch Bishop Orlando Quevedo. The issue here now is “if Bishop Quevedo asks the help from PCSO to give him vehicles for his own benefit. This issue was commented that it is not for the personal use of Bishop Quevedes, but for the use of the vehicles for the social action apostolate of the Cotabato City. Thus it is not lawful for a government to give money or benefit to a specific person. Thus for Bishop Quevedes is also a priest all priest and the bishops are being connected and affected by this issues.

Priests must be very careful on the things they do to protect priesthood as they are being one of that priesthood. Purified ways of helping others as in helping one must be in the good intention and selfless way of helping to create a selfless community of priests being concerned to the flock they shepherd. The purification of all acts only happens in the formation of seminarians. The seminary should have good form of formation program to form its seminarians to act in accordance to the goodness of God. It is the task of the priests as their future brothers to see them and guide them in the formation. For the true essence of community is being a church.

I can’t imagine myself living alone or don’t have relationship to any individuals in the society. I don’t think so if how long I can survive it or maybe I can’t. As persons, we are created by God not to be alone in this world. If that was His purpose before, He never mind to make Eve for Adam.  He made Eve for Adam, because God noticed that Adam needs to have a partner wherein he can union so that he will not feel alone and empty. He made Eve in the likeness of Adam so that they can be truly partners. God wants us, His children, to gather as one in Him, because we can only attain His promised kingdom if we are in union with one another and living the life that He wants us to have.

Max Scheler, on his theory of Person and Community describes that “Person” is universal. Therefore, by the term itself it is grounded to others or the community. For Scheler, the nature of person is always “communal” and he can never separate his self from the community because the community is already part of its essence. There are two parts that makes the personality of the person. The first part is what we call the “Phenomena”. A Phenomena means the actual or the outside appearance of the person (the way he looks or the structure of his body). But it is not only the Phenomena that could tell who really the person is, but it is also the “Noumena”. A Noumena means the ideas or the perspective of the person. It is more on the inside of a person. We can never say that the person is kind if we will just base it on his Phenomena. In knowing the person we should focus on its “Noumena”, because it serves as the very core of the person and usually the “Phenomena” will just follow it. For example, we can know that a person is a happy person (Noumena) when he is always smiling (Phenomena). The Phenomena is the reflection of the Noumena. These two are very important because they play an important role from one another. We can’t know the Nous of the person if we don’t have first his Phenomena and we can only know the person not only because of his Phenomena but also with his Noumena. Scheler also gives importance to the acts of the person. The effect of the acts is the revealation of the Noumena. And the proper act of person is relation or relating. The person is person only at the time of the act or when he is aware that he acts. Human person is a thinking relation and he must relate to other thinking person (community). The fruit of the thinking (the act) of the person is that he learns how to value or to label things around him. He knows his “likes” and “dislikes”. Since man is a rational being, he is expected to focus more on the highest value which is the Spiritual, because the higher the value that he perceives (acting morally), the more person he becomes.

Scheler would like to emphasize that a “Person” is grounded in the “Community” and he can never escape from that reality, because it is there in his nature to be communal to others. So I would like to relate this idea of Scheler in the context of the Seminary Formation. Here in the seminary we are living as one community. Therefore, everyone of us here is correlated to one another and to the rest of the community, as a whole. I can never say that, “I belong to the seminary community but I don’t want to correlate with them.” If I discriminate myself from the others, there will be no communion that will happen between me and my community.  And there must be a problem within us if we are dividing ourselves from one another. Here in the seminary, a seminarian is not being formed to become a self-centered person, but he is formed to develop his communal thinking and to become an integrated person. Why? It is because we are living as one community. I can never say to myself that, “I am the seminary” but rather I will say, “We are the seminary”. I can never have a seminary formation if it is not because of my priest formators, my lay teachers, my classmates, and the rest of my seminary community. For all of them are parts of my seminary formation. They are my seminary formation. Since we are living here as one community, it would also mean that whatever I did, whether it is good or bad, has an effect or will affect the whole community, because I’m a part of this community.

As I reflect about it, I can say that it is really important in our formation here in the seminary to develop our sense of being communion with others. Why? It is because when we became priests already, we will serve as the image of “Communion of God” to all the people that we minister.  We can never say that we can only be a priest for ourselves. Priesthood is not only for the sake of oneself. It is for everybody. In fact, it was a gift shared to us by Christ so that we could share it also to others. It is never ours alone. It is for the people whom we will serve later on our ministry. It is because of the people that we will become priests. If it is not because of the community, why will I become a priest? To whom I’m going to deliver my homily? How can I evangelize if there is no one who needs my evangelization? Who will be with me as I celebrate the holy eucharist? The good thing about communal thinking is that it promotes unity. If we develop it here in the seminary we can eliminate the existence of selfishness and ignorance about the others. And if that will be granted, I think our community will really progress in every areas of formation and maybe we can add more things in our formation that will help us to become a good community and institution.

Communion is innate in our constitution as persons. If we are not in communion, there must be something wrong that is happening in us, because it is not our nature to be divided from one another. And if this would happen it seems that we also forgot our essence being a person. We are in communion not only because we want to gather as one but we are gathered because we want to share from one another all that we have and we would to partake with them ourselves to become also a part of their lives. 

“The person is in the community and the community is in the person.” The person makes the community. The essence of the community is the human person. He is communal in nature. He has already a community even he is still in the womb. He is a relational being, a social animal. Because he is a relational being, he cannot isolate and separate himself in the community. He will always be part of the community. For part of the essence of the person is his community. His community proves and tells that he is a true and real person. His community is the source of data and ideas about who he is. As long as he is in the community, the level of his being a person increases, however when he isolates himself, it decreases. For him to know himself better, he has to relate with others. Because the deeper the relationship he has in the community, the deeper and clearer he knows himself. Because of the better understanding of the concept of the community, he has a better understanding of himself.

The proper act of person is relation. Every act of man is relational. It has something to do with others. Whatever he does as long as it affects others, then he is considered to be a person. And if the person is not doing any action, then he is like a body without a person. His life would be useless and meaningless because anyone who does not act is not a person. Speaking of act, it is the action of the subject in the community. Meaning you act with the community. You communicate, relate, interact, move and unite with others. You are always in communion with them. By doing this, little by little you are able to develop a healthy and bonded community. You have a closer relationship, for I believe that action is the self-revelation of being. The more you act out and commit yourself in the community, the more you reveal and expose yourself. The person attains his personhood through the process of actual action as self-revelation of his being. Thus, in the seminary community, in order for us to really know each other and develop a healthy relationship, we have to show our true selves to expose something in us and we have to get out of our own shells and caves. There should be always a community-act for it to function well, an active and alive movement within the community.


Person in itself is good. As human being, he is expected to do good. Person is characterized only as rational being. He is naturally endowed with reason. This helps him to become true person. He knows what are the things that a real person should supposed to do. morality happens when a person relates. In order for him to be real and true person, he has to relate and act good and morally towards others. If a person acts well, he is a moral person. However if he acts immorally, he becomes lower than animals. It seems that animals are better than him. We have to remember that only human beings can act morally.  Thus, in our seminary community, we have to maintain a healthy relationship. We have to avoid hurting each other. We have to deal and act morally towards others. We have to live a virtuous and holy life. We need to act as true seminarians.

In the seminary, one of the aspects of our formation that we value most and being emphasized is our community life. Each one of us in the community is important. Every one of us has its own involvement and contribution. We affect each other. We are living in one community. We make our community. Because we are in a community, we act, live and do together. No one has to live alone and isolates himself. It is not good for a member of the community to separate always himself in the community. It is not also proper if we are going to outcast anyone in the community. Because, even if that seminarian separates himself or being isolated, he is always be part of the community. One cannot move away in the community because the more he moves away, the more he is accountable with his community for the community is in him.


The seminary envisions us to be an integrated human persons, Christ-centered, apostolic proclaimers and contemplative pastors. We are being taught to live a righteous and moral life, for us to be good and holy ministers of God. This can be attained through our moral acts.  However, as what I have observed in our community, many of us act immorally which is not proper to a seminarian. We are becoming wicked, insensitive, unkind, impious, brutal and malicious toward our brothers in the community. We are fond of teasing others, making fun of them, throwing bad words or false accusations and even hurting them physically. We act as if we are not true persons. We are not animals, we are human beings.  We are the only ones who can act morally. Thus, as long as we stay and live with the community, we have to share, spread and continue doing things morally. We have to share our love, care, concern, support and encouragements with one another. Above all, we have to develop a closer relationship with our God. By doing these, we are building and creating a sanctified community. By maintaining this kind of blessed life as seminarians, there will be a production of good and holy priests. By this, there will be no more scandalous and disgraceful happenings and incidents take place in the Catholic Church.

Every person in the community is important. Everyone has an important role and involvement in the making of the community. That is why we have to value one another. We have to develop a sense of togetherness. We have to be true and transparent enough in revealing ourselves. We make and create our community. We are responsible of it. If we are living in harmony, with love, understanding, peace, friendship and most especially having a deepened spirituality or faith, for sure we will be having a healthy, united and blessed community.