The Rational Nature of Man

Rational Psychology is a distinct branch (subject) in Philosophy that studies man in his rational nature as
demonstrated in all his thoughts, expressions, manifestations, actuations and conduct, even as these are
sourced from his intellectual mental capacity. Thus Rational Psychology is philosophical psychology and
differs from the so-called Empirical Psychology which is experimental in nature. The rational nature of
man tells essentially his having been gifted with an intellect and free will. This intellect has a capacity to
know, understand, think, analyze or rationalize or decide on truth as its proper object. This free will has a
capacity to desire good as its proper object. Both these intellect and free will figure so prominently in the
study of man as a rational being. Hence, this science or discipline is called Rational Psychology. Rational
Psychology is distinct from the science of the Psychology which has its own proper object. This will be
properly discussed in Chapter 7, Man in Psychology, ad infra. In the meantime, we have to be content,
that as far as studies are concerned and what facts show, man is incontrovertibly rational and that there is
still no single evidence to suggest otherwise.

It is much easier to believe and understand that man is rational in being (ens), that is, in his ontological
nature. However, it does not get easier to understand and accept that man is rational is his concrete
existence (existens), in a way that he demonstrates such rationality in his concrete conduct or behavior;
specifically in the way he functions. More often than not, the rational ens does not correspond or match
with his rational existens. As a matter of fact, while we know that man is rational, his behavior is not
always rational but irrational? When indeed we say that man is rational in ens, we understand him to be
virtuous, upright, straight or reasonable. It seems therefore that when rationality comes into the fore as a
concept, it leads to man being a moral being since rationality brings almost immediately the concept of
decency and respectability. Observably, it is sometimes ironical that when man acts irrationally, then it is
the moment that we say that he is after all a man or more specifically human. We wonder what is in his
irrationality that makes him a man and what is in his rationality that makes him righteous and not a man?
We have to accept that man is essentially associated with the attribute of humanity which is understood
basically as imperfect. It is here that we realize that indeed imperfection is always associated with being a
man in his existens and not in his ens. We can infer thus that rationality in ens does not always translate to
rationality in existens. Caution though should be made that man does not lose his rationality even in his
irrationality because essentially he is rational.

One last observation though is that if indeed man is rational in esse (to be verb, or ens, being, noun) and
rational all throughout in existens, then this world must be paradise and that life would be indeed fair. But
since this world is not paradise, then we can all the more understand that man is not always rational in his
existens. It can hence be deduced that there is a vacuum that shows the inconsistency in man's ens and
existens. This deduction can be ascertained since as many philosophers would observe, it is experientia
patet (that is, as it is clear from experience). Nonetheless, this observation may not be without a
challenge. Suffused as it may with objections, much is still wanting in clear explanation of what
constitutes the true concept of rationality.

Man: A Rational Animal

The basic constituents that philosophers attribute to man as a being is his rationality and animality. This
category was first coined by Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC). To distinguish him from angels who are purely
spiritual beings, man is first and foremost considered as both rational and animal. His rationality makes
him share in the rationality of angels. But his animal nature makes him share with brutes or animals.
These attributes makes him share both with angels and animals but also set him apart from them. It can be
said however, that while man is rational and animal, his whole being is an embodied spirit. With the
possession of his rationality, he is gifted with intellect and free will. With the possession of his animality,
he is gifted with physical body. He, therefore, possesses both spiritual and bodily attributes. But this
concept of rational animal must be considered as a logical whole of an embodied spirit. It is in this
context where we see the perseity or ipseity (by and in himself) of man as many philosophers call it.

Man's rationality nevertheless inheres and has its subject, the soul. The soul, as it will be explained is the
principle of life and all of its activities whether they are mental, spiritual and physical. Man's rationality
springs from this soul which is by nature rational, as explained. Without this rational soul, man would
only be like any other creatures as plants and animals. But precisely, his rationality is the very attribute
that sets him apart from these creatures. But the more the soul demonstrates its rationality through his
thoughts and actions, the more it can claim perfection. For the more perfect the soul is, the more perfect
are its actions. What makes the soul perfect is based on the quality of its intellectual acts and the free
choices its will makes.

As a corollary, it is noteworthy that one of the greatest proofs of man's rationality is man's capacity to
make highly rational decisions. This can well be seen when man makes moves even when he knows the
great risks that are attendant to such move. Risky options are risky decisions. But such decisions are signs
of high rational acts. It may well be that such acts are sure or safe options. But whatever it is, decisions
that have higher or greater risks are what it means to be a rational being in its highest end. This means
that even when risks or dangers are too high and maybe too costly and the decisions are too highly
thought of due to such risks, the results that are being anticipated or hoped for are greater or more noble
than the risks involved. When we talk about high risks, it means risks against the greatest value that is
life. Hence, the highest rational decisions are those that bring about highest risks against human life. In a
word, the value of human life brings with it also high rational decisions because human life is highest in
the hierarchy of values.

Meaning of the Concept 'Rational'

For a clear understanding of the concept of rationality, the following would be of great help namely:
"Rational" as reasonable. When a human being acts, it is usually assumed that what he does is within the
purview of reason. This is so because a man acts based on a previous motivation which must be
qualifiedly reasonable. Reality however does not paint favorably such image or picture of him. As a
matter of fact man sometimes acts unreasonably. That is why he comes into trouble with law, social order
and with his fellowmen and even more so with himself. Instead of acting with fairness and justice with
himself and others, he does the very opposite due to his unreasonable behavior and motivation. It is not
therefore unusual to hear commonplace observation that when man acts unreasonably, he acts
emotionally. This act is shared even by brutes as when he acts due to his current emotional condition.
When man is angry, he acts out of anger and not out of reason. But whether or not he acts with his
emotion, this does not remove altogether his motive for acting so. Hence, to be rational is to act based on
motives (whether or not the motive and the consequent action are right or wrong).

"Rational" as righteous. It is commonly accepted that rational acts are expected to be righteous acts.
These acts follow some norms or standards of human and socially accepted behavior. When man goes
into excess or fall short of what is humanly expected then he becomes unrighteous. It is here where we
see the meaning of virtue which is a quality of human act as that which stands in the middle, that is, it
avoids excess or defect. Any act that falls within these two polarities is not virtue but a vice. A virtue is a
habit that confers and brings goodness to the agent and to the act. A vice is a habit that confers absence of
goodness to the agent and to the act. So a rational person is a righteous person.

"Rational" as a mental attribute. When man acts, even when such acts are deemed irrational, there is a
previous process through which he designs, plans, chooses means and ends, deliberates the best action he
can think of. These acts are basically mentally-charged acts. When therefore he engages his mind through
some mental acts, there is presumably an intelligent operation. And such an operation cannot be realized
when his rational mind is not employed. Under this view, man is rational and his actions are essentially a
product of rational function. Rationality of man must be first understood in this view. Hence, man is a
rational agent. He acts because he engages in some mental thinking, analysis, synthesis, calculations, use
of language, and the like.

"Rational" as belonging to the nature of origin. To be rational is to act or think based on the being that
is by origin rational. This means that since human beings are deemed rational as shown by his acts or
thoughts, then these originate from a rational being, even when they are different or opposite the norms or
standards of rationality. For this reason, a man, whatever his thoughts and actions are. is deemed
responsible and is blameworthy for them. There is no escaping from the consequences of one's actions or
thoughts, since rationality supposes rational source. If they come from humans who are considered
rational, then these acts or thoughts are rational. Hence, human thoughts and actions are rational by virtue
of the nature of their origin.

"Rational" means being human. Observably, man acts according to what his humanity dictates or
prescribes him to do. Even if sometimes his acts are not in accordance with what is commonly a standard
of rationality, he does so because there is an element in his humanity that urges him to act the way he
does. This act is considered a response that is essentially human as when one goes to rescue another in
crisis even when there is a present danger which he sometimes does not realize. An example of which is
when he comes to offer assistance to someone who is trapped in a car that has turned turtle on the street.
He may not realize that the car can explode at any time and he may sustain injury himself or even be
killed in the process. As far as he is concerned, his offer of rescue is most human as naturally influenced
by his sense of compassion characterized by help to a person of his kind and in crisis for that matter. In
this instance, to be rational is to be human. This rationality sometimes is not well defined as so-called
logical but just being a fellow to another fellow. To be rational is to transcend the constraints of what is
logical, but to see the value of humanity in everyone.

The Fact of Human Instinct

The topic on man's rational nature would not be complete unless a discussion of his so-called instinct is
given a space. Inquiries are made about whether or not human instinct is part and parcel of man's rational
nature. Man's act out of reason or out of one's natural coping mechanism is called instinct. Man would not
be man without instinct. Otherwise, he would only be on the level of plants. Obviously, plants grow and
bear fruit and never have any iota of consciousness of whether or not they do so. But many times man
acts out of instinct and not out of deliberation. When man faces sudden danger, immediately, man without
deliberating on it, displays natural coping mechanism to ward it off. And this coping mechanism is
immediately engaged in order to ensure protection and avoid other annoying elements. But just as man
engages instinct without deliberation, he does so because it is still part and parcel of his animal being
whose natural tendency is to protect him from danger. Instinct therefore is very much an essential part of
his animal nature, since all living beings, especially animals, to which men and brutes belong, have a
natural instinct for survival. To act in a way that protects one's being from undue danger may not be
called properly as rational but is instinctive, end belongs essentially to man's nature.

Man's External, Internal and Spiritual Senses

Man makes rational acts because there is a natural process through which he does these acts and follows
as his nature dictates. They are natural gifts that he possesses that are meant to know, understand things in
their quiddity or essence. Possessing the quiddity of things becomes one of his greatest acts since
acquisition of such is acquisition of wisdom, the ultimate object of one's inquiry. The possession of this
wisdom cannot but happen through sense and intellective knowledge.

The five external senses. As proven from experience, man possesses five external senses namely: sight,
smell, taste, of touch sensation, and hearing. They are understood as the immediate principles of
sensation. They are called external simply because they function in the tandem with the external world or
environment as their proper object. The senses are like windows of the soul. They open the soul to the
world and can also close it by closing these senses to the world. It is through the senses that man is it by
the process of cognition. Without the senses, man would be unable to know A classic example is when in
an early age, a boy who does not have the sense of hearing would not be able to speak nor imitate others
to speak. When one is blind from birth, it would be impossible for him to know colors. If one is unable to
have smell, he would not know which odors are sweet or foul. If one does not have the sense of taste, he
would never know what is sour or salty. The external senses are indeed condition-sine-qua-non for
knowledge and choice of the intellect and free will, respectively.

The four external senses. There are three internal senses, namely: central or common sense,
imagination, cognitive power and memory. The common sense is commonly understood as the sense
that perceives as obviously familiar and does not even require deep intellectual processes. Hence, we call
it common sense. It is supposed to be the most commonly used sense as it is commonly present in all
human beings. The imagination is the power that registers the impression to produce the image called
phantasm as seen ad infra. The cogitative power is one that judges the value or truth of phantasm. And
memory is the power that reproduces the phantasm in the context of time and space. It stores or stocks
experiences and situates them in continuous mode, as enunciated by Gonzales et al. (2007).

The two spiritual senses. Man possesses two powerful spiritual senses whose functions are higher
than the external senses, namely: intellect and will. The intellect's function is to know and understand its
object. Its object is knowledge of the truth. On the other hand, the will is the power whose function is to
choose with freedom. The object of the will is good. That is why when a man chooses, he chooses what is
good. And even if he chooses evil, he chooses it in the context of good. Further, since man is imperfect,
sometimes his choices are the very opposite of his proper object. In this case, the use of his free will is
properly considered a misuse or abuse of that will. And undoubtedly, man misuses or abuses his free will
because his acts are borne out of an error in the perception of truth or simply because he does not have a
cursory knowledge of the truth. When this happens, what actually is falsehood is perceived as truth, and
vice-versa what is actually a truth is perceived as falsehood.

The Concept of Human Cognition as a Natural Act of Man

Human cognition is an act of the power of the human soul in which the knower becomes aware of
something and in so doing brings to himself some self- consciousness. This comes about when the
knower is able to possess in him something other than himself. Mentally, it can be said that when
something is known, the known and the knower become one. When a human agent knows a truth, for
instance, he becomes one with the truth. Eventually when this happens, the truth is deemed an adequation
(or accurate rendition) of what the mind possesses and what has been comprehended. Human cognition is
therefore a motivational act in which the knower becomes aware that he possesses knowledge of the
known. Consequently, human knowledge is the highest of all knowledge because it is first and foremost
an act of the intellect served by external senses. And of all the acts of man, the act of the intellect is
highest in the hierarchy. Where before an object, for example, was perceived as material, it becomes
immaterial when human cognition completes its act. Hence, we can infer that immateriality is the root
principle of knowledge and intelligibility as processed by an intelligent human being. With the above
explanation, human cognition cannot but be a part of the nature of man as an intelligible being.

The Process of Human Cognition

It is much easier to understand human cognition by knowing how it all begins. Observably,
human cognition or knowledge begins with the (external) senses. Note that the process of cognition is
first in order of time, sense cognition, and ends in an intellectual knowledge of the quiddity of the object.
Hence, we can see in the illustration a division of sense and intellectual knowledge. We have to be
warned that such stage-by-stage processes happen in such a quick fashion that sometimes we are not any
more conscious of how they happen. This is so because previous experiences make it happen because the
mind does not anymore return to some cumbersome step-by-step process since the so-called stock
knowledge makes it really easy for the mind to act so swiftly. This experience is the cause of the fast
development of knowledge and the rapid explosion of information since the mind makes reference to its
previous knowledge from which man can put building blocks to higher, larger and deeper knowledge.

The process of cognition entails detailed determination of the stages and how this happens like
purifying water from one stage to another, or from raw water to intentionally purified water, and insure
potability. The drinkable water therefore is what the purifying process is intended to produce. The
analogy may be imperfect but it tells of a process that is quick and lightning fast as the process of
cognition. This of course does not happen to water purification that as such needs slow, arduous scientific
and technological process intended to produce potable water and ensure health.

It must be noted that the process of cognition as illustrated ad infra is a stage by stage rendering
of the process that when in a rather detailed for clarification and better assimilation. In reality, the process
of cognition is swift and does not usually take more time than we already experience. Experience tells us
we have already acquired the habit of cognition, more often than not, the process takes place as if it is an
automatic thing that happens. Intellectual habit makes it happen just like any human habit.
Let us take a look at what Gonzales (2007) say on the process –illustration below.\

A rather thorough explanation is in order as elucidated in relative detail by Gonzales et al. (2007)
with minimal modifications.

An acquisition of knowledge of cognition is an act by which a knowing agent, as man, becomes

its object by intention. It is the act in which a part of the knowing soul reaches awareness or
consciousness of a particular or universal knowledge. In so doing, there creates a kind of self-
modification in him. This so-called self-modification is referred to as the objective possession of an
object other than the knowing agent.

It is admitted by rational psychologists that immateriality is the root of knowledge and

intelligibility. It is in fact the fullness of perfection by which the knowing agent can overcome its own
material limitations and its distinctions from other knowable beings. On the other hand, intentionality is
the intellectual power to possess the immaterial form of the object (cognitive illumination). Now, the
intentional species is the immaterial mode of existence an object acquires when it is united to a cognitive
power such as the intellect. There are two kinds of species according to its mode of existence, as
illustrated ad supra: 1. Impressed species is the species which activates the cognitive power from potential
(potential form) to know the actual knowledge, 2. Expressed species is the species produced and retained
in the cognitive power as the fulfillment of actual knowledge.

Further, intellection, as the same authors elaborated, is the mental power to make judgments or to
state the objective reality (or not reality) as it is understood by the knower. The intellect is actually the
power or faculty that enables man to make such judgment.
 The intellect possesses the following powers: 1. The active intellect which is the power that
dematerializes and de-individualizes the phantasm (cf. the illustration the object ad supra). The phantasm
when dematerialized and de-individualized turns into the impressed species, and as a result, becomes fit
for the passive intellect to receive. 2. The passive intellect is the receiver of the active intellect's fruits, the
impressed species which it retains and reflects on an expressed species.

Moreover, the truth is the object of the intellect (and indirectly its untruth). The human intellect
starts this inquiry of truth - its link with reality - through the quiddity or essence of things, also known as
ideas or concepts. As these ideas or concepts are intentional species of the things outside the intellect,
they appear as intelligible forms, as faithful adequation (rendering) of the intellect. Since the human
intellect is not organic but a spiritual faculty, its activities transcend the limitations of matter and also the
physical organs of the human body. But the thing that interests it is that it brings into action the phantasm
which is now converted to intentional species, courtesy of the active and passive intellect. Consequently,
these ideas or concepts are validated as to whether they are objective (not just mere fabrications of the
mind or imagination but has its basis in reality outside the intellect). And the intellect formulates this
conformity or adequation or through a judgment. Thus, truth, which is the formal object of the intellect, is
ultimately formulated to lead into a mental judgment.

It must be noted that in the illustration there is a traversing diagonal arrow designated as process
of abstraction. Abstraction or the process of abstraction is an act by which man forms ideas or concepts
from sense knowledge. Illumination is the process where the active intellect extracts from the phantasm
the essence or quiddity of the object and leaves aside all the individuating features that characterize in its
singularity. Reflection is the process which stands for the knowing agent's ability to know that he knows.
It must be borne in mind that the end-result of the process of cognition is the idea as illustrated in Figure
1. But it does not immediately stop there as the mind (almost) automatically creates ideas that are
logically associated with that particular idea. In Figure 1, ad supra, the object of cognition is obviously a
rooster. Once the intellect arrives in the idea of rooster as its intentional object it forms ideas such as: the
rooster is a source of food, it is a good material for cock fighting, it is good for breeding other chicken, it
is good as pet, or it can be a marketable item, etc. Hence, the idea, the end-result of cognition, is an idea
that brings some essential and peripheral features that were not previously present in the process of
cognition but are paramount ideas just the same.

The Acts of the Human Mind

In the science of Logic, the so-called acts of the mind are natural operations of man as a rational
being and categorized into the following:

Comprehension. According to Manuel T. Piñon, OP (1973), apprehension is the act of the mind
by which it "grasps" or knows the nature of essence of a thing, without affirming or denying anything
about it. It is an act that is associated with conceptual abstraction and presupposes it. When the concept
"simple" is attributed to it as to qualify it, then the concept refers to an act that is by and large generic.
This means that the act referred to here is a perception that is essentially initial and universal. It does not
therefore say that the object apprehended is specific or particular but belongs to a concept as universal as
"being." This act of the mind is the very first act by which the mind forms idea/s about the object. Hence
the object here is not complex, not elaborate definitions. Simply, it is only a mental apprehension. When
one has simple apprehension as when one perceives something from afar, then he can say that the object
apprehended is existing or it is a being. One does not say in simple apprehension that he is seeing a dog or
a tiger or a goat. All that he is saying is that there is a being or something there from afar.

Judgment. Judgment is the second act of the mind by which it affirms or denies one concept over
another. In other words, judgment is a pronouncement about the identity or non-identity (or the truth or
untruth) of one concept from another. When we therefore say that a certain "Jack is a man," it states that
this man is an individual, as a certain Jack, and he is the same as an individual with an attribute of human
nature. When we say that Troy is a homosexual, it means that a person identified as Troy is an individual
whose sexual orientation is that of a homosexual (and therefore attracted to the same sex). When we say
that Pompeii is not an intelligent professor, it means that a person, identified as Pompeii, is not the same
as an individual who is an intelligent professor. Or when we say that Johnny is a thief, it means that a
person, identified as Johnny, is not the same as an individual who is honest.

Reasoning. This third act of the mind makes justification from a judgment made. As such, it
manifests a statement or thought that what was made as a judgment agrees with truth or reality, through
knowledge gleaned from observation, research, or study. In Logic, however, judgment is an act referred
to as inferential thinking. It is made out of a series of mental comparisons consistent with an inferential
process called syllogism. This inference may be in the form of inductive, deductive, categorical or
hypothetical reasoning. Now, reasoning here makes conclusion or discourse. And when it comes to
certain moral issue, an example may be given thus:

Killing an unborn baby is murder.

But abortion is killing an unborn baby.
Therefore, abortion is murder.

In this particular example, the mind attains certain inferential truth, through a positive syllogistic
discourse. The reasoning becomes mentally systematic and syllogistic.

Soul, the Principle of Life (Self-Motion)

Life consists in self-motion (i.e., sui-motio) or simply, life must demonstrate self-motion through
(independent) internal self-activity in order to claim existence of life. When there is no self-activity, then
there is absence of life. Self-activity is propelled (caused) by a principle present in the living being called
soul. Without the presence of this principle called soul. any being or body cannot have self- motion. This
self-motion is demonstrated by its own nature or natural instinct, like growth, locomotion, reflex or
rational activity. Hence. the presence of a soul. being the principle of life, is a proof of the presence of life
or living activity. When the soul therefore is not present in the living being, then death occurs or simply
there is no life in the said being. Although there are objects that claim to be automatic or self-moving. like
cars, instruments or gadgets that react, in time and space, to move or function, yet, their principle of
action or function is generated by an external power as a person igniting a car or plugging on the switch
to make it function. The soul is essentially internal to the being that is alive. When a principle is external,
then it cannot claim to have a soul, the principle of self-motion. When a living being, therefore (finally)
loses this self-motion, he is deemed dead. Hence, he also loses his soul (rational soul). That is why even
the body of the dead is called remains (loosely considered residues of the deceased).
 Moreover, Marcelo S. Sorondo (2012) makes a very interesting assertion that a human being
essentially belongs to an intellective power that can operate spiritually as what a spiritual soul does. He
says that an intellective being "emerges above corporal matter and is not dependent on the body or on the
compound of body and soul. Therefore this being belongs indissolubly to the intellective soul, like
roundness to a circle. The human soul is a "subsistent form" because it has the being for itself, which it
transmits to the body and retains (in) itself when the dead body is no longer capable of receiving life from
the soul." The same author says as he quotes St. Thomas Aquinas, in De Spiritualibus Creaturis (On the
Spirituality of Creatures): "The most perfect of forms, the human soul, which is the end of all-natural
forms, has an activity that goes entirely beyond matter, and does not take place through a corporeal organ,
namely, understanding (rationality), (Italics mine). And because the actual being of a thing is
proportioned to its activity since each thing acts according as it is a being (ens), it must be the case that
the actual being of the human soul surpasses corporeal matter, and is not totally included in it, and yet in
some way touched upon by it. Inasmuch as, then, as it surpasses the actual being of corporeal matter,
having of itself the power to subsist and to act, the human soul is a spiritual substance; but inasmuch as it
is touched by matter and shares its own actual being with matter, it is the form of the body."

From the above account, the human soul is the foundation of one's living corporeal entity.
Separated from it. the human person loses his true humanity. therefore. its principle of life. A dead person
may leave his corporeal form. but does not anymore enjoy his humanity. This corporeal matter that has
been left due to death is a mere corporeal body with a different substantial form (and therefore different
from a living human entity).

Issues on Brain Death and Rationality

The human soul, the principle of life, as alleged by experts basically 'resides' or 'inheres' in the
brain justifying heretofore that the brain is the center of the nervous system like a "control console.' For
this reason, medical experts justify it by saying that when the brain is (completely) dead, including the
brain stem, a person cannot have self-motion, nor react to stimulus. This is so because the brain is the
subject where the capacities of the soul can function as they should. This soul is the rational soul and
when the brain is dead, it is believed that the rational soul, the constitutive element of a rational being is
also dead. Hence, even when the person is still breathing, he is considered to be in a vegetative state and
that medically, he is in comatose and worse, his condition is irreversible. This means that he cannot return
nor be returned by any medical intervention, to his normal life. (Only a miracle probably can save him if
indeed one day he just wakes up alive). Sometimes when the condition extends too long a term, he is
considered in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Although, medical experts still do not consider a
person in PVS to be really dead as this condition is only considered a diagnosis. And a diagnosis is but a
medical opinion until after finally determined.

In this particular scenario, we see some moral and medical and even legal issues. It can be
summarized into these questions namely: Is a brain-dead patient dead? Or he is still alive? It is necessary
to make a good Rational Psychology pronouncement here and clarify contentious issues. The answer to
these questions lies substantially in the question about who man is and what makes man a man. The issue
therefore can only be resolved if we are able to clearly prove whether man's nature is indeed rational. And
when he loses this rationality, then he loses his human nature. As medical experts would say, he is already
in "vegetable state."
Three Kinds of Souls (States of Life)

To give some enlightenment to the above issue, let us first go to some accepted facts in Rational
Psychology. This issue will be tackled in terms of understanding the essentially accepted kinds of soul or
states of life.

In rational psychology, otherwise known as philosophical psychology, there are three (3)
essentially accepted kinds of soul, namely: the vegetative soul, the sentient soul, and the rational soul.
From these classifications, logically there are also three kinds of life since the soul is the principle of life.

The vegetative life is the lowest life form of life which generally has the character of immobility.
Like trees and plants, these belong to the vegetative life and are not locomotive (mobile) nor sentient.
They do not have the property of responsiveness nor are they sensitive to stimuli like living animals. But
they are blessed with life since they have a principle of self-motion, like growth. Therefore, they too have
souls, only it is a material soul. Since their soul is material, they are not blessed with immortality. When
they die, it is their final end. The death of their physical or biological life is the death of their soul. Since
the soul is the principle of life, then its death is the death of its being.

The sentient life belongs properly to animals. The dogs, cats, and horses possess sentient life.
Since human beings are by nature also animals (rational), they too possess sentient life. Animals respond
to stimulus, are sensitive, and demonstrate locomotion. They, too, possess souls because they have
principles of self-motion through growth and locomotion. Their souls though are also material, in the
sense that when death occurs, they finally end their lives.

The rational life belongs properly to human beings who are blessed not simply with a vegetative
and sentient quality but with a higher attribute called reason (or intellect). This capacity inheres in the
biological organ which is the brain, the central nervous system. This reason/rationality sets them apart
from the mere vegetative, sentient (or animal life), since their activity is not merely limited to
responsiveness to stimuli nor to locomotion, but to mental or intellectual activities. Unlike the vegetative
and sentient life, man distinctly possesses a principle also called soul. This soul is spiritual. unlike the
soul of plants and animals. Since this soul is spiritual, it cannot die and is therefore immortal. So, the
body may die, but the soul does not. Death therefore of a person occurs when the rational soul is absent in
the body.

The contention above should lead us to one of the most controversial issues about the state of the
human person who has been declared brain-dead. From the discussion, we should give sufficient
explanation, both philosophical and medical in order to justify if indeed a brain-dead person is dead or is
alive. The discussion of the topic below is of import and comfort.

THE BASIS FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF BRAIN DEATH AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO
SAVING HUMAN LIFE

The great interest in the issue of brain death is not motivated simply to determine with such
accuracy the state of a brain-dead-patient to conclude if indeed he/she is still alive or already dead and
deserves to be buried. The truth is that we want to make a final medical assessment of brain death simply
because we can now proceed with the harvest of his organs for transplantation and consequently, save
another patient and allow the latter to live quality life. We, in the medical and ecclesiastical disciplines,
recognize that the issues that can be gleaned in this situation are never easy to resolve as there are no
clear-cut explanation to many of us, the stakeholders. Understandably, even medical science and other
disciplines cannot offer clear answers and unfortunately, even muddle them. We must recognize that as
far as the brain-dead-patient is concerned, the line that divides between his state of life and his state of
death is too thin and difficult to dissect. One problem that must be recognized is the use of language. And
we know that our language sometimes is very imperfect and limited even with the use of medical jargon.
Even law does not also offer clear-cut answers and instead confuses everything. Unfortunately,
sometimes an ethical problem that resorts to legal solutions becomes usually catastrophic. Some practices
in the USA are a good example of very bad practice. Now, even with the advances in science to boot,
physicians, bioethicists and governments continue to debate the issue of brain death criteria for purposes
of organ transplants and determining the exact moment of death.

Let me introduce to you where these controversies or issues lie. For purposes of clarity, there is
compelling reason to make some assuring (or provoking) statement if only to contribute to the
understanding of the issue. Let me first introduce some premises.

Evidently, there is no dearth of controversies that arise from the issue of brain death related to
organ transplantation. The following are some of these issues:

1. The Harvard brain death standard. It is presumed that all those in the medical profession know or
have come across the standard to determine brain death by Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (1968).
General references adopt the Harvard standard and make the indicators of brain death as simple as an
irreversible coma. Generally, the simple medicine that many of us laymen understand for this medical
condition is vegetable state (gulay in local vernacular).

Specifically, there are four (4) parameters for brain death indicators and they are the ff.:

1. Unreceptively and unresponsiveness (no response to stimuli, like pain or papillary response)
2. No movement or (spontaneous) breathing
3. No reflexes (cranial nerve reflexes)
4. Flat electroencephalogram (This is confirmatory.)

The waiting time of 24 hours after cessation of brain function, including the brain stem is required before
a final determination of brain death.

In addition, the following (may) must be present: 1. Body temperature 32° C) and 2. Absence of central
nervous system (CNS) depressants.

The Harvard criteria (used as references of many medical societies worldwide) gradually gained
consensus in USA and a number of countries in Europe. In the wake of the 1976 Karen Ann Quinlan
controversy, state legislatures, coaxed by the medical communities, moved to accept brain death as an
acceptable indicator of death. Unfortunately, not all international scientific communities or medical
societies or circles around the world accept these criteria. The so-called whole brain death has become the
basis of Uniform Determination of Death Act in the USA, which is now the law in almost all fifty states.
In the UK the Royal College of Physicians in 1976 and 1977. rejected the whole brain death criteria and
more so, higher brain death, as scientifically worthless, and adopted the notion of irreversible brain stem
dysfunction as a final indicator of death.

There seems to be a consensus in the general references among experts and medical literature
about brain death as referring to the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity
necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of blood flow and
oxygenation. The irreversible brain-stem death is taken to be the significant indicator of death.

The significant point is that the brain is no longer capable of sustaining the rest of the body's
systems without advanced life support. But this should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state
(PVS) which is a diagnosis and therefore an opinion. The concept of brain death emerged in the 1960s, as
the ability to resuscitate individuals and mechanically keep the heart and lungs functioning became
prevalent.

Although many experts accept the brain death criteria by Harvard, not a few still pose some
objections.

2. The need for organ transplants. The need for saving patients through organ transplant
procedures has grown by leaps and bounds since the immediately preceding two decades. Scarce organs
have added to the growing problem for organ transplant procedures coupled with some unethical practices
of organ sale and trafficking. The Philippines' national policy banning foreign patients was a strong
reaction to these unethical practices prejudicial to the needs of local patients. Rich foreigners coming
from the Middle East, Asia, and Europe have been trooping to the country to seek organs that are way
cheaper in the Philippines than in their own countries.

The seriousness of the scarcity of organs for transplant has been noted two decades ago when the
Philippine Organ Donations Act #7170, was signed in 1991 to favor the harvesting of organs from brain-
dead-patients. Up until now, the demand for organs is high and there seems to be no stopping the demand.
And since the demand is so great, there are also great ethical issues that arise as in the case of harvesting
of said organs from the so-called brain-dead-patients or non-related donors.

3. Some religious beliefs about brain death. General references make observation accordingly
that it is fortunate that many religious groups' view on organ donation is generally very favorable,
although there is a debate among some institutional religions on the validity of current brain death
criteria. Accordingly, the more theologians are accepting current brain death criteria cited above, the more
they are likely to support organ donation. Nevertheless, organ transplantation is clearly not compatible
with some Shinto and Buddhist beliefs, and is controversial in certain Christian, Jewish and Muslim
circles, and therefore would not usually favor organ donation from brain-dead-patients and even from
living organ donors, like Jehovah's witnesses who do not encourage it. Japan has been a very late adopter
of brain-centric indicators of death to favor organ transplantation. Even now, religious and cultural roots
do not favor the procedure. The more radical ones would come to the Philippines to seek organ donation
until the ban prohibited foreign recipients in 2009.

The Rational Psychology View: The Philosophical Approach

 From the issues arising from the brain death, specifically the resolution to determine brain death
as true death, one should take into consideration the language and principles of Rational Psychology
which is referred to as philosophical psychology.

From the discussion above, it is of import to go back to the concepts of the ff.: 1) The soul, the
principle of life (Life consists in self-motion (cf. ad supra) or simply, life must demonstrate motion
through (independent) self-activity in order to claim the existence of life. When there is no self-activity,
then there is absence of life. Self-activity is propelled (caused) by a principle present in the living being
called soul); 2) The three kinds of soul (Three states of life).

Added to the philosophical arguments, let us view the arguments based on authorities (as viewed
in general references). to wit:

1) The view of the Church. Up until now there has not been a black and white pronouncement
by the Church on whether or not a brain dead patient is dead or alive. There are seeds of arguments both
in favor of either one side or the other side.

The Vatican accepts organ transplantation and the brain death standard by Harvard. which is
widely used in Catholic hospitals. although it wants to remain quiet about it and not making a 'black or
white' declaration. Declaring the brain death criterion un-Catholic would mean those hospitals would
have to revert to the cardiac death standard alone. But that leaves a much smaller window for removing
viable organs and would make one kind of transplantation - like heart transplants - all but impossible.
There is. of course, not much issue when we talk about the paired organs, like kidney.

2). The traditional view. As far as the traditional view is concerned, Lucetta Scaraffia. an Italian
history professor and bioethicist says, "The scientific justification of the brain death standard rests on a
peculiar definition of the nervous system that is now being questioned by new research, which casts doubt
on the fact that brain death leads to the disintegration of the body the idea that the human person ceases to
exist when the brain no longer functions, while the body is kept alive - thanks to artificial respiration -
implies an identification of the person with brain activity alone. This contradicts the concept of the person
according to Catholic doctrine and thus contradicts the directives of the Church in the case of patients in a
persistent coma." Hence, one can only say that a patient is dead, not because his brain is dead but because
he is truly dead, that is, when finally the heart stops beating.

The common medical acceptance of death is under this purview. Medically, death occurs when:

a. disease or illness finally overcomes the human organism.

b. vital organs necessary for life cease to function permanently (e.g., entire brain incl. brain stem)
c. irreversible loss of cardio-respiratory function.

3. The advanced view. This view is a calculated view but many choose to remain silent about.
We note in the above discussion that there are three states of life, namely: the vegetative life, the sentient
life, and the rational life. When indeed the brain is dead, including the irreversible brain stem dysfunction,
the person loses his nervous system and his rational property. When that happens, he loses his rational
nature that properly belongs to rational beings and also his sentient state that characterizes his animal
nature. What remains with him is his vegetative state which properly belongs only to plants. Hence, it is
proper and compellingly right that the once human being is now only a vegetable. He may have the form
that is physically proper of rational beings, but because he has irreversibly lost his sentient and rational
state, then he properly belongs to the vegetative state. Even when the heart still beats, he lives a
vegetative life, that is, non-sentient, non-locomotive. This is the case of plants. Hence, the patient belongs
to the vegetative state and he no longer enjoys the rational personhood of life. Hence, there is the
disappearance of man's rational soul or rational state of life.

Rational Psychology's concept of death is under this purview. to wit:

a. It is the stoppage of self-motion.

b. When the physical body gives in to the subjection to physical corruption and decay.
C. When rationality is finally lost (that it cannot anymore be served by the vital organs.)

Nevertheless, the theological/religious view is very different and sees death as a very positive and
glorious one. as Christian faith tells. From the above explanation, it can be ascertained that man's
rationality inheres first and foremost in the mind. Without the mind as its source, then man is no different
from animals with living bodies.

Man's Gift of Risibility

One of the simplest forms of proof of the rationality of man is his gift of risibility, the power to laugh or
perceive humor. In humor, one transmits a message intended to produce a smile or laugh. One has to
detect two things, to bring out the humor in the message, namely: incongruity accompanied by a degree of
appropriateness. The one cracking the humor or joke must be able to see some ironies in the truth or
untruth of things that are well inserted into proper timing or appropriateness. For example, when a two-
year-old child says something that is true and says it without malice, yet there is incongruence with the
appropriateness of his age. When we perceive something that is politically incorrect and quite
embarrassing, then humor must have been present. Jokes are some forms of humor. When they elicit
laughter, such laughter is the product of perception by a rational mind. When man reacts through this
laughter or smile, then it simply means that his mind must have functioned under the realm of rationality
by expressing the consequent humor or hilariousness.

In view of the above, man is called a homo ridens, a laughing man by G. B. Milner (1969).
Further, such risibility is part and parcel of his being born to a civilization, who has raised feelings to a
category of value, and hence, he is called homo sentimentalis. Man has not only the ability to empathize
but also to idealize emotions and make them servants of ideas, Proponents of this view are Milan Kundera
in Immortality (1990), Eugene Halton in Bereft of Reason: On the Decline of Social Thought and
Prospects for its Renewal (1995).

Man and Language

The use of language by man cannot be overemphasized as it gives compelling proof of his
rational nature. His language is not only limited to verbal manifestations but also to signs and gestures. It
cannot be denied that even animals communicate as they too have also some brain activities. But they are
not as articulate and insightfully deep as a man is. Man's language gives meaning to what he wants to
communicate and other men make use of the same in order to bring out correspondence and engage others
that lead to responsive words and consequently, action. It would appear preposterous to even think of a
man without language through which he can interact with other living things.

The function of language in man. Man uses language in order to engage in active (or even
passive) inquiries with other creatures with brain functions. In doing so, he is able to enter into the
meaning of things their reality, and man understands the process of cognition. Further, with the use of
language, he is able to know how the meaning can ever be known. Through this, man is able to compose
sentences into a meaningful whole out of the meaning of scattered parts.

Further, man pursues an understanding of speakers and listeners and how the latter used language
socially. Later, ma makes insights into how the minds of both the speaker and listener relate to each other.
And finally, man discovers the meaning of truth or falsehood that is essentially associated with language
communication.

From the above discussion, one infers that language is basically part and parcel of man's rational
nature. Language is one proof of man's innate gift for learning. It is a means through which man learns to
interpret thoughts attached to words, signs or gestures.

Language is a powerful medium that channels words into knowledge and knowledge into action
since it can order or command compliance. It can also trigger resistance. It can also demonize others and
produce madness for the mob. Hence, language can be inferred as man's best mouthpiece that truly
reflects his mind.

It is no wonder then that man is considered an homo loquens, a talking man, the only animal
capable of language (as advocated by J. G. Herder 1772 and J. F. Blumenbach 1779). Hence, language
can be learned easily by man being a being capable of language, especially the verbal and written
language. The sign language is an evolved language for those unable to talk. It is an evolution brought
about by nature of man and necessity to engage with others.

It can also be added that man is also an homo loquax, a chattering man, which is a parody
variation used by Henri Bergson (1943), Tom Wolfe (2006) and also by Leibowitz (1960).

FINAL REMARKS

The nature of man should be distinguished as either a nature that belongs to the specific nature of
man as a universal being (homo rationalis) and a nature that belongs to the individual man as a particular
being (vir or mulier individualis) as in a particular human Jesus, Jose or Maria. The universal man bears a
nature that is true to any other man in the homo nature. The individual man is a person who is identified
as a person who is unique and has no identical being. In biology, he is a man with a unique personality,
that is, with a distinct DNA, the chemical basis of individuation. But the DNA is not the only factor that
individuates a particular human nature. Other factors like character, idiosyncrasy, mental-set, genetics.
acquired habits or virtues, dreams, threshold to pain and suffering, language, cultural upbringing, physical
external attributes, etc. enter into the whole equation of man's particular distinctiveness. Hence, while
man is fundamentally a rational nature and whose attributes are shared with all human beings, there is
also a nature that individuates a particular man and whose identity cannot be replicated. That man or
human being is either one of us or another. This nature is commonly called second nature.