Human Person In The Environment - Handouts

HUMAN PERSON IN THE ENVIRONMENT

According to Payne (2010) there are two frameworks where humans can be related:

Anthropocentric vs. Ecocentric •

Based on the anthropocentric model, humans are superior and central to the universe.

•

Ecocentric model, the ecological or relational integrity of the humans, provides meaning of our moral and values and it is nature centered.

1



Notice things that are not in their place and organize them in an aesthetic way A. Ancient thinkers Early Greek philosophers, the Milesians, regarded nature as spatially without boundaries, that is, as infinite or indefinite in extent. a. ANAXIMANDER - Creation- Destruction - Sketch of the genesis of the world (cosmology) the evolution of the world begins with the generation of opposites in a certain region of nature. b. PYTHAGORAS - described the universe as living embodiment of nature’s order, harmony, and beauty. The Chinese cosmic conception, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that all that happens in the universe is a continuous whole like a chain of natural consequences B. Modern Thinker a. IMMANUEL KANT - Immanuel Kant expresses that beauty is ultimately a symbol of morality. We must ignore any practical motives inclinations that we have and instead contemplate the object without being distracted by our desire. He believe that nature and humanity are part of an even bigger design b. HERBERT MARCUSE &GEORGE HERBERT MEAD - Understanding our relationship with the environment can also refer to the human beings with ecology and nature. For Herbert Marcuse, humanity had dominated nature. There can only be change if we will change our attitudes towards our perception of the environment. Moreover, for mead, as human beings, we do not have only rights but duties. We are not only citizens of the community but how we react to this community and in our reaction to it, change it.



There are numerous theories to show care for the environment aside from the ecocentric model such as deep ecology, social ecology, and ecofeminism to name some. A. Deep Ecology - For this theory, ecological crisis is an outcome of anthropocentrism, which is already discussed. The controlling attitude of humankind is extended to nature, when in fact, humanity is part of nature. Deep ecologists encourage humanity to shift away from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism. B. SOCIAL ECOLOGY 2

-



For this theory, ecological crisis results from authoritarian social structures. Destroying nature is a reflection wherein few people overpower others while exploiting the environment for profit or self-interest. Social ecologist call for smallscale societies, which recognize that humanity, is linked with the well-being of the natural world in which human life depends. C. ECOFEMINISM - This theory, ecological crisis is a consequence of male dominance. In this view, whatever is “superior” is entitle to whatever is “inferior”. The human desire to experience union with others is one of the strongest motivations of human behavior and the other is the desire for survival. Cultures that foster the greed for possession are rooted in one human potential. Demostrate the Virtue of Prudence and Frugality toward Environment Fromm (2013) proposed a new society that should encourage the emergency of a new human being that will foster prudence and moderation of frugality toward environment. These are some of the functions of Fromm’s envisioned society: 1. The willingness to give up all forms of having, in order to fully be. 2. Being fully present where one is. 3. Trying to reduce greed, hate, and illusions as much as one is capable. 4. Making the full growth of oneself and one’s fellow beings as the supreme goal of living. 5. Not deceiving others, but also not being deceived by other; one maybe called innocent, but not naïve. 6. Freedom that is not arbitrariness but the possibility to be oneself, not as a bundle of greedy desires, but as a delicately balanced structure that at any moment is confronted with the alternatives of growth or decay, life or death. 7. Happiness in the process of ever-growing aliveness, whatever the furthest point is that fate permits one to reach, for living as fully as one can is so satisfactory that the concern for what one might or might not attain has little chance to develop. 8. Jot that comes from giving and sharing, not from hoarding and exploiting. 9. Developing one’s capacity for love, together with one’s capacity for critical, unsentimental thought. 10. Shedding one’s narcissisms and accepting that tragic limitations inherent in human existence. The idea of this society cross all party lines; for protecting nature needs focused conversation, action, political will, and support from industry. If all these sectors agree on the same goals, the possibility of change would seem to be considerably greater, especially since most citizens have become less and less interested in party loyalty and slogans.

3