Introduction to the Philosophy

of the Human Person:

Lesson 4
A human person is a living being that
contains a real and existing to direct its
own development toward fulfillment
through perfect, unconditional, and
infinite Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty,
and Unity, and will do so if all the proper
conditions are met.
The sum total of all
surroundings of a living
organism, including
natural forces and other
living things, which
provide conditions for
development and growth
as well as of danger and
damage.
 • WHAT IS THE WORLD MADE OF?
• HOW DID THE WORLD COME INTO BEING?
• HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THE PROCESS OF
CHANGE?

Those are philosophical questions

brought up approximately 600 B.C.E in the
Western Ionian seaport town of Miletus
across the Aegean sea from Athens,
Greece.
The speculation of the pre-
Socratic philosophers
represent a paradigm shift– a
change from mythical
explanation of the origins of
the cosmos to a more rational
explanation.
Eastern sages probed nature’s depths
intuitively through the eyes of spiritual
sages which Greek thinkers viewed
nature trough cognitive and scientific
eyes (Price 2000). This thinkers were
looking for the underlying laws of
nature. They wanted to understand the
processes of nature by studying nature
itself, not by listening to the stories
about the gods.
According to Payne (2010) there are
two frameworks where humans can
be related.

1.Anthropocentric Model
2.Ecocentric Model
 Human
Culture
Individualism
Mind
Calculative
Human Over/ Against Environment
Global/ Technological
Anthropocentrism (/ˌænθroʊpoʊˈsɛntrɪzəm/;[1] from Greek Ancient Greek:
ἄνθρωπος, ánthrōpos, "human being"; and Ancient Greek: κέντρον, kéntron,
"center") the belief that considers human beings to be the most significant
entity of the universe and interprets or regards the world in terms of human
values and experiences.[2] The term can be used interchangeably with
humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as human supremacy or
human exceptionalism. Anthropocentrism is considered to be profoundly
embedded in many modern human cultures and conscious acts. It is a major
concept in the field of environmental ethics and environmental philosophy,
where it is often considered to be the root cause of problems created by
human action within the ecosphere
However, many proponents of
anthropocentrism state that this is not
necessarily the case: they argue that a sound
long-term view acknowledges that a healthy,
sustainable environment is necessary for
humans and that the real issue is shallow
anthropocentrism.
The domination of humanity is linked to
the domination of nature based on the
anthropocentric model. An unfair or unjust
utilization of the environment result to
ecological crisis. From this view, it follows
that human arrogance toward nature is
justifiable in order to satisfy human
interest.
Sometimes, humans
adopt an exploitive
attitude whenever
nature is merely
considered as an
instrument for one’s
profit or gain.
EARTH POLLUTION
STONGER TYPHOONS
SOIL EROSION
FAMINE
Some proponents of human exceptionalism
point to evidence of unusual rapid evolution of
the brain and the emergence of exceptional
aptitudes. As one commentator put it, "Over
the course of human history, we have been
successful in cultivating our faculties, shaping
our development, and impacting upon the
wider world in a deliberate fashion, quite
distinct from evolutionary processes
 Anthropocentrism, also known as homocentricism or human
supremacism,[6] has been posited by some environmentalists, in such
books as Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman and Green
Rage by Christopher Manes, as the underlying (if unstated) reason
why humanity dominates and sees the need to "develop" most of the
Earth. Anthropocentrism is believed by some to be the central
problematic concept in environmental philosophy, where it is used to
draw attention claims of a systematic bias in traditional Western
attitudes to the non-human world.[7] Val Plumwood has argued[8][9]
that anthropocentrism plays an analogous role in green theory to
androcentrism in feminist theory and ethnocentrism in anti-racist
theory. Plumwood calls human-centredness "anthrocentrism" to
emphasise this parallel.
One of the first extended philosophical essays
addressing environmental ethics, John Passmore's
Man's Responsibility for Nature[10] has been criticised
by defenders of deep ecology because of its
anthropocentrism, often claimed to be constitutive of
traditional Western moral thought.[11] Indeed,
defenders of anthropocentrism concerned with the
ecological crisis contend that the maintenance of a
healthy, sustainable environment is necessary for
human well-being as opposed to for its own sake.
 . The problem with a "shallow" viewpoint is not that it is
human-centred but that according to William Grey: "What's
wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-
being of humans, but that they do not really consider enough
in what that well-being consists. According to this view, we
need to develop an enriched, fortified anthropocentric
notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term,
sectional and self-regarding conception."[12] In turn,
Plumwood in Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of
Reason argued that Grey's anthropocentrism is
inadequate.[13]
 It is important to take note that many devoted
environmentalists encompass a somewhat anthropocentric-
based philosophical view supporting the fact that they will
argue in favor of saving the environment for the sake of
human populations. Grey writes: "We should be concerned
to promote a rich, diverse, and vibrant biosphere. Human
flourishing may certainly be included as a legitimate part of
such a flourishing."[14] Such a concern for human flourishing
amidst the flourishing of life as a whole, however, is said to
be indistinguishible from that of deep ecology and
biocentrism, which has been proposed as both an antithesis
of anthropocentrism.[15] and as a generalised form of
anthropocentrism.[16]
Maimonides, a scholar of the Torah who lived in the
12th century AD, was noted for being decidedly anti-
anthropocentric. Maimonides called man "a mere
'drop of the bucket" and "not 'the axle of the
world'".[17] He also claimed that anthropocentric
thinking is what causes humans to think that evil
things exist in nature.[18] According to Rabbi Norman
Lamm, Maimonides "thus deflate[d] man's extravagant
notions of his own importance and urge[d] us to
abandon these illusions
In the 1985 CBC series "A Planet For the
Taking", Dr. David Suzuki explored the Old
Testament roots of anthropocentrism and
how it shaped our view of non-human
animals. Some Christian proponents of
anthropocentrism base their belief on the
Bible, such as the verse 1:26 in the Book of
Genesis:
And God said, Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness: and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth.
 Anthropocentrism is the grounding for some naturalistic concepts of human
rights. Defenders of anthropocentrism argue that it is the necessary fundamental
premise to defend universal human rights, since what matters morally is simply
being human. For example, noted philosopher Mortimer J. Adler wrote, "Those
who oppose injurious discrimination on the moral ground that all human beings,
being equal in their humanity, should be treated equally in all those respects that
concern their common humanity, would have no solid basis in fact to support
their normative principle." Adler is stating here, that denying what is now called
human exceptionalism could lead to tyranny, writing that if we ever came to
believe that humans do not possess a unique moral status, the intellectual
foundation of our liberties collapses: "Why, then, should not groups of superior
men be able to justify their enslavement, exploitation, or even genocide of
inferior human groups on factual and moral grounds akin to those we now rely on
to justify our treatment of the animals we harness as beasts of burden, that we
butcher for food and clothing, or that we destroy as disease-bearing pests or as
dangerous predators?"[19]
 Author and anthropocentrism defender Wesley J. Smith from
the Discovery Institute has written that human
exceptionalism is what gives rise to human duties to each
other, the natural world, and to treat animals humanely.
Writing in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy, a critique of animal
rights ideology, "Because we are unquestionably a unique
species--the only species capable of even contemplating
ethical issues and assuming responsibilities--we uniquely
are capable of apprehending the difference between right
and wrong, good and evil, proper and improper conduct
toward animals. Or to put it more succinctly if being human
isn't what requires us to treat animals humanely, what in the
world does?"[20]
 In cognitive psychology, anthropocentric thinking can be
defined as "the tendency to reason about unfamiliar
biological species or processes by analogy to humans".[21]
Reasoning by analogy is an attractive thinking strategy,
and it can be tempting to apply our own experience of
being human to other biological systems. For example,
because death is commonly felt to be undesirable, it may
be tempting to form the misconception that death at a
cellular level or elsewhere in nature is similarly
undesirable (whereas in reality programmed cell death is
an essential physiological phenomenon, and ecosystems
also rely on death).[21]
Conversely, anthropocentric thinking can
also lead people to under attribute human
characteristics to other organisms. For
instance, it may be tempting to wrongly
assume that an animal that is very different
from humans, such as an insect, will not
share particular biological characteristics,
such as reproduction or blood
circulation. [21]
Anthropocentric thinking has predominantly
been studied in young children (mostly up to
the age of 10) by developmental psychologists
interested in its relevance to biology education.
Although relatively little is known about its
persistence at a later age, evidence exists that
this pattern of human exceptionalist thinking
can continue through young adulthood, even
among students who have been increasingly
educated in biology.[22]
The notion that anthropocentric thinking is an
innate human characteristic has been
challenged by study of American children
raised in urban environments, among whom it
appears to emerge between the ages of 3 and 5
years as an acquired perspective.[23] Children's
recourse to anthropocentric thinking seems to
vary with experience and cultural assumptions
about the place of humans in the natural world
 Children raised in rural environments appear to use it less
than their urban counterparts because of their greater
familiarity with different species of animals and plants.[21]
Studies involving children from some of the indigenous
peoples of the Americas have found little use of
anthropocentric thinking.[21][24] Study of children among the
Wichí people in South America showed a tendency to think
of living organisms in terms of their taxonomic or perceived
similarities, ecological considerations, and animistic
traditions, resulting in a much less anthropocentric view of
the natural world than is experienced by many children in
Western societies.
In fiction from all eras and societies, there is
fiction treating as normal the actions of
humans to ride, eat, milk, and otherwise
treat animals as separate species. There are
occasional exceptions, such as talking
animals, but they are generally treated as
exceptions, as aberrations to the rule
distinguishing people from animals.
In science fiction, humanocentrism is the idea
that humans, as both beings and as a species,
are the superior sentients. Essentially the
equivalent of racial supremacy on a galactic
scale, it entails intolerant discrimination against
sentient non-humans, much like race
supremacists discriminate against those not of
their race.
A prime example of this concept is utilized as a
story element for the Mass Effect series. After
humanity's first contact results in a brief war,
many humans in the series develop suspicious
or even hostile attitudes towards the game's
various alien races. By the time of the first game,
which takes place several decades after the war,
many humans still retain such sentiments in
addition to forming 'pro-human' organizations.
This idea is countered by anti-humanism. At
times, this ideal also includes fear of and
superiority over strong AIs and cyborgs,
downplaying the ideas of integration,
cybernetic revolts, machine rule and
Tilden's Laws of Robotics.
Mark Twain mocked the
belief in human supremacy
in Letters from the Earth
(written c. 1909, published
1962).
The 2012 documentary The Superior Human?
systematically analyzes anthropocentrism and
concludes that value is fundamentally an
opinion, and since life forms naturally value
their own traits, most humans are misled to
believe that they are actually more valuable than
other species. This natural bias, according to the
film, combined with a received sense of comfort
and an excuse for exploitation of non-humans
cause anthropocentrism to remain in society
 Nature
Wild
Holism
Nature/ Cosmos
Body
Relational
Earthy/ Wisdom
Ecocentrism (/ˌɛkoʊˈsɛntrɪzəm/; from Greek: οἶκος oikos, "house" and
κέντρον kentron, "center") is a term used in ecological political
philosophy to denote a nature-centered, as opposed to human-
centered (i.e. anthropocentric), system of values. The justification for
ecocentrism usually consists in an ontological belief and subsequent
ethical claim. The ontological belief denies that there are any
existential divisions between human and non-human nature sufficient
to claim that humans are either (a) the sole bearers of intrinsic value or
(b) possess greater intrinsic value than non-human nature. Thus the
subsequent ethical claim is for an equality of intrinsic value across
human and non-human nature, or 'biospherical egalitarianism'.[1]
According to Stan Rowe
 There are three theories
about the
Ecocentric Model such as
Deep Ecology, Social Ecology
and
Ecofeminism.
Is an ecological philosophy
developed by Norwegian philosopher
Arne Naess in the early 1970’s
asserting that all life forms have an
equal right to exist, and human needs
and desires have no priority over
those of other organisms. Believes that
the living environment should be
respected and regarded as having
rights to flourish, independent of its
utility to humans.
It is a critical social theory founded by
American anarchist and libertarian
socialist author Murray Bookchin.
Conceptualized as a critique of
current social, political, and
antiecological trends, it espouses a
reconstructive, ecological,
communitarian, and ethical approach
to society.
It is also called ecological feminism, branch of
feminism that examines the connections
between women and nature. Its name was
coined by French feminist Francoise
d’Eaubonne in 1974. A philosophical idea that
combines feminism and ecology concerns,
emphasizing that both suffer from their
treatment by a male dominated society. Comes
from the idea that women and nature have
significant connection, since women most often
have a close association with nature in many
societies due to the nature of their traditional
roles.
 ALDO LEOPOLD
The ecocentric ethic was conceived by Aldo Leopold[5] and recognizes
that all species, including humans, are the product of a long
evolutionary process and are inter-related in their life processes.[6]
The writings of Aldo Leopold and his idea of the land ethic and good
environmental management are a key element to this philosophy.
Ecocentrism focuses on the biotic community as a whole and strives to
maintain ecosystem composition and ecological processes.[7] The term
also finds expression in the first principle of the deep ecology
movement, as formulated by Arne Næss and George Sessions in
1984[8] which points out that anthropocentrism, which considers
humans as the center of the universe and the pinnacle of all creation, is
a difficult opponent for ecocentrism.[9]
 ENVIRONMENTALISM
 Environmental thought and the various branches of the environmental
movement are often classified into two intellectual camps: those that are
considered anthropocentric, or "human-centred," in orientation and those
considered biocentric, or "life-centred". This division has been described in
other terminology as "shallow" ecology versus "deep" ecology and as
"technocentrism" versus "ecocentrism". Ecocentrism can be seen as one stream
of thought within environmentalism, the political and ethical movement that
seeks to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment through
changes to environmentally harmful human activities by adopting
environmentally benign forms of political, economic, and social organization
and through a reassessment of humanity's relationship with nature. In various
ways, environmentalism claims that non-human organisms and the natural
environment as a whole deserve consideration when appraising the morality of
political, economic, and social policies
 ANTHROPOCENTRISM
Ecocentrism is taken by its proponents to constitute a
radical challenge to long-standing and deeply
rooted anthropocentric attitudes in Western culture,
science, and politics. Anthropocentrism is alleged to
leave the case for the protection of non-human
nature subject to the demands of human utility, and
thus never more than contingent on the demands of
human welfare.
 ANTHROPOCENTRISM
 An ecocentric ethic, by contrast, is believed to be necessary in
order to develop a non-contingent basis for protecting the natural
world. Critics of ecocentrism have argued that it opens the doors to
an anti-humanist morality that risks sacrificing human well-being for
the sake of an ill-defined ‘greater good’.[11] Deep ecologist Arne
Naess has identified anthropocentrism as a root cause of the
ecological crisis, human overpopulation, and the extinctions of many
non-human species.[12] Others point to the gradual historical
realization that humans are not the centre of all things, that "A few
hundred years ago, with some reluctance, Western people admitted
that the planets, Sun and stars did not circle around their abode. In
short, our thoughts and concepts though irreducibly
anthropomorphic need not be anthropocentric."[13]
Industrocentrism is an ideology that goes hand in
hand with today's industrial neoliberal capitalist
agenda. It sees all things on earth as resources to be
utilized by humans or to be commodified. This view
is the opposite of anthropocentrism and
ecocentrism. It negatively affects humans,
nonhumans, and the environment in the long run in
that it only focuses on short term economic
gratification.
 Ecocentrism is also contrasted with technocentrism
(meaning values centred on technology) as two opposing
perspectives on attitudes towards human technology and its
ability to affect, control and even protect the environment.
Ecocentrics, including "deep green" ecologists, see
themselves as being subject to nature, rather than in control
of it. They lack faith in modern technology and the
bureaucracy attached to it. Ecocentrics will argue that the
natural world should be respected for its processes and
products, and that low impact technology and self-reliance
is more desirable than technological control of nature.[15]
 Technocentrics, including imperialists, have absolute faith
in technology and industry and firmly believe that humans
have control over nature. Although technocentrics may
accept that environmental problems do exist, they do not
see them as problems to be solved by a reduction in
industry. Rather, environmental problems are seen as
problems to be solved using science. Indeed,
technocentrics see that the way forward for developed and
developing countries and the solutions to our
environmental problems today lie in scientific and
technological advancement.[15]
The distinction between biocentrism and
ecocentrism is ill-defined. Ecocentrism recognizes
Earth's interactive living and non-living systems
rather than just the Earth's organisms (biocentrism)
as central in importance.[16] The term has been used
by those advocating "left biocentrism", combining
deep ecology with an "anti-industrial and anti-
capitalist" position (David Orton et al.).
 NOTICE THINGS THAT
ARE NOT IN THEIR
PROPER PLACE AND
ORGANIZE THEM IN AN
AESTHETIC WAY.
Aesthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks/ or /iːsˈθɛtɪks/;
also spelled æsthetics and esthetics)
is a branch of philosophy that
explores the nature of art, beauty, and
taste, with the creation and
appreciation of beauty.[1][2]
In its more technically epistemological
perspective, it is defined as the study of
subjective and sensori-emotional values,
sometimes called judgments of sentiment and
taste.[3] More broadly, scholars in the field
define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art,
culture and nature".[4][5] In modern English,
the term aesthetic can also refer to a set of
principles underlying the works of a
particular art movement or theory: one
speaks, for example, of the Cubist aesthetic.[6]
 Anaximander (c. 610 – c. 546 BC) was
a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who
lived in Miletus,[3] a city of Ionia (in
modern-day Turkey). He belonged to
the Milesian school and learned the
teachings of his master Thales. He
succeeded Thales and became the
second master of that school where he
counted Anaximenes and, arguably,
Pythagoras amongst his pupils.[4]
 A pre-Socratic philosopher and scientist
said about the Creation-Destruction.
According to him, the sketch of the
genesis of the world (cosmology), the
evolution of the world begins with the
generation of opposites in a certain
region Nature. Nature is indeterminate-
boundless in the sense that no
boundaries between the warm and or
the moist and dry regions are originally
present within.
 Little of his life and work is known
today. According to available
historical documents, he is the first
philosopher known to have written
down his studies,[5] although only one
fragment of his work remains.
Fragmentary testimonies found in
documents after his death provide a
portrait of the man
While, according to Pythagoras,
‘universe is a living embodiment
of nature’s order, harmony and
beauty.’ He sees our relationship
with the universe involving
biophilia (love of other living
things) And cosmophilia (love of
other living beings).
 Legend and obfuscation cloud his work, so it is
uncertain whether he truly contributed much
to mathematics or natural philosophy. Many of
the accomplishments credited to Pythagoras
may actually have been accomplishments of
his colleagues or successors. Some accounts
mention that the philosophy associated with
Pythagoras was related to mathematics and
that numbers were important. It was said that
he was the first man to call himself a
philosopher, or lover of wisdom,[5] and
Pythagorean ideas exercised a marked
influence on Plato, and through him, all of
Western philosophy.
Much of what we know about Pythagoras's life comes from
Neoplatonist writers. These writers believed in the Greek
gods,[6] so many myths exist around Pythagoras. Myths about
Pythagoras include: Apollo was his father, Pythagoras gleamed
with a supernatural brightness, Pythagoras had a golden thigh,
Abaris once flew to him on a golden arrow, and Pythagoras was
seen in different places at the same time.[7] According to Sir
William Smith, with the exception of a few remarks by
Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and
Isocrates, we are mainly dependent on Diogenes Laërtius,
Porphyry, and Iamblichus for biographical details.[8] Burkert
(1972, p. 109) states that Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus are the
most important accounts.[9]
Aristotle wrote a work On the Pythagoreans, which is no
longer extant.[10] Some of it may be available in the
Protrepticus. Aristotle's disciples Dicaearchus, Aristoxenus,
and Heraclides Ponticus also wrote on the same subject.
These writers were among the best sources from whom
Porphyry and Iamblichus drew, while still adding some
legendary accounts and their own inventions to the mix.
Hence, historians are often reduced to considering the
statements based on their inherent probability, but even
then, if all the credible stories concerning Pythagoras were
supposed true, his range of activity would be impossibly
vast
Pythagoras, described the universe as
living embodiment of natures order,
harmony and beauty. He sees our
relationship with the universe involving
biophilia (love of other living things)
and cosmophilia (love of other living
beings). Perhaps, we could consider
the early him as an ecologist.
 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. All events in the universe follow a
transitional process due to primeval pair, the yang and the
yin. The universe does not proceed onward but revolves
without beginning or end. There is nothing new under the
sun; the “new” is a repetition of the old (Quito 1991) Human
beings’ happiness lies in his conformity with nature or tao;
the wise, therefore, conforms with tao and his happy.
 Immanuel Kant (/kænt/;[6] German: [ɪˈmaːnu̯eːl kant]; 22 April
1724 – 12 February 1804) was a German philosopher who is a central
figure in modern philosophy.[7] Kant argued that the human mind
creates the structure of human experience, that reason is the source of
morality, that aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested
judgment, that space and time are forms of our sensibility, and that the
world as it is "in-itself" is independent of our concepts of it. Kant took
himself to have effected a "Copernican revolution" in philosophy, akin
to Copernicus' reversal of the age-old belief that the sun revolved
around the earth. His beliefs continue to have a major influence on
contemporary philosophy, especially the fields of metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, political theory, and aesthetics
 Politically, Kant was one of the earliest exponents of the idea that perpetual
peace could be secured through universal democracy and international
cooperation. He believed that this will be the eventual outcome of universal
history, although it is not rationally planned.[8] The exact nature of Kant's
religious ideas continues to be the subject of especially heated
philosophical dispute, as viewpoints are ranging from the idea that Kant was
an early and radical exponent of atheism who finally exploded the
ontological argument for God's existence, to more critical treatments
epitomized by Nietzsche who claimed that Kant had "theologian blood"[9]
and that Kant was merely a sophisticated apologist for traditional Christian
religious belief, writing that "Kant wanted to prove, in a way that would
dumbfound the common man, that the common man was right: that was the
secret joke of this soul.
 In one of Kant's major works, the Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik
der reinen Vernunft, 1781),[11] he attempted to explain the
relationship between reason and human experience and to move
beyond the failures of traditional philosophy and metaphysics.
Kant wanted to put an end to an era of futile and speculative
theories of human experience, while resisting the skepticism of
thinkers such as David Hume. Kant regarded himself as ending
and showing the way beyond the impasse which modern
philosophy had led to between rationalists and empiricists,[12]
and is widely held to have synthesized these two early modern
traditions in his thought
Kant argued that our experiences are structured
by necessary features of our minds. In his view,
the mind shapes and structures experience so
that, on an abstract level, all human experience
shares certain essential structural features. Among
other things, Kant believed that the concepts of
space and time are integral to all human
experience, as are our concepts of cause and
effect.
 One important consequence of this view is that our
experience of things is always of the phenomenal world
as conveyed by our senses: we do not have direct access
to things in themselves, the so-called noumenal world.
Kant published other important works on ethics, religion,
law, aesthetics, astronomy, and history. These included
the Critique of Practical Reason (Kritik der praktischen
Vernunft, 1788), the Metaphysics of Morals (Die
Metaphysik der Sitten, 1797), which dealt with ethics, and
the Critique of Judgment (Kritik der Urteilskraft, 1790),
which looks at aesthetics and teleology.
The Critique of Judgment (German: Kritik
der Urteilskraft, KdU), also translated as the
Critique of the Power of Judgment, is a 1790
philosophical work by Immanuel Kant.
Sometimes referred to as the third Critique,
the Critique of Judgment follows the Critique
of Pure Reason (1781) and the Critique of
Practical Reason (1788).
HERBERT MARCUSE
said about the power
of humans over nature,
while GEORGE
HERBERT MEAD
tackled about our
duties and
responsibilities
Our environment is created
for every humans, so you as
good as one being must
take Good care of nature!
Remember LIFE is all about
BALANCE
 GROUP TASK
A. Resolution and Minutes
of the meeting
B. Advocacy Video
RUBRICS
A. Content- 10
B. Process- 5
TOTAL of 15 Points
RUBRICS
A. Content-10
B. Creativity/ Editing- 10
C. Relevance/ Impact- 10
D. Originality- 5
TOTAL of 35 Points
 Video Length- Bot less than 3 Minutes but not more than 5
Minutes

 Covered Location- Masbate City or Masbate Province

 Provisions-
1. Must not hire a video editor.
2. Must not cover previous output.
3. Must not use inappropriate words