I thoroughly enjoyed this lecture and thought it was both insightful and entertaining. The topic that stuck out to me the most was that of which compared the human person to hues of color on a spectrum. Dr. McNamara explains Stein's idea of how humanity is a refraction of God's divine white light. Each person has its own individual and unique hue that both reflects the light of Christ together with other humans, but also alone as a separate being and that each hue is unrepeatable and irreplaceable. I had never heard of this analogy before and I think it is a beautiful way to explain what a human person is and how we are individually made to glorify God and reflect His love. Additionally, I enjoyed the explanation of how we can remain both present with others while fully present to yourself and in a way become more fully yourself. In other words how you must "lose oneself in order to find oneself". Ultimately, I believe Dr. McNamara did a wonderful job at explaining Steins beliefs on the Human and its personhood.
Thank you so much for this lecture! I appreciate your advanced insight into these topics. I also appreciate your comparisons, because they helped me to better understand the topics. In particular, when you compared the human person to the hues of color on the spectrum. I also appreciate Dr. McNamara’s comments and exploration of St Edith Steins ideas regarding the conscious “I”. This lecture helped me to develop an overall better understanding of the human person!
I really enjoyed the attention grabbing and thought-provoking introduction! Some points that McNamara brought up that I also really enjoyed included St. Thomas's idea that, "the term person signifies what is most perfect in all nature." It is interesting to take a step back and appreciate the beauty of humans amid all of the other beauty of God's creation. Also, the continuation of how all actions leave a trace on the acting subject, good ones leading to virtue and bad leading to vice. It is important to remember this, especially when we want to give in to small temptations thinking they won't affect us too much. Striving for goodness always is vital to living a virtuous life. Lastly, McNamara's comments on Stein were extremely intelligent. I enjoyed the comments about the soul dwelling with itself and how the personal eye is at home in the soul. The importance of the personal eye is greater than I had realized before. It is how we take in the world around us and the soul helps us take a position based on what is taken in. I will continue contemplating these ideas and embrace a deeper appreciation for my encounters with the world around me and my encounters with the presence of people around me.
I enjoyed the talk very much. I have always been (no pun intended) facilitated by the question of questions. “To be or not to be”. It really does help clarify truth beauty and goodness. I love the connection you made to Aquinus. “Being is the actuality of all acts and therefore the perfection of all perfections.” To be is to be truthful, to be is to be beautiful, to be is to be good! Makes a person want to simply be! It also makes me think of Gods nature, “I am”.
Within the discussion of the soul and the conscious "I," Stein's understanding that the conscious "I" is the "gardener of the self" was particularly striking to me. The responsibility implied here for the conscious "I" in the growth and unfolding of the soul is incredibly important, and I thought it was beautiful how this responsibility means first and foremost dwelling in the "soul of the soul," or the innermost depth of the person. This illumination of the necessity of dwelling in the deepest part of the soul for its growth and venturing forth is a call to me to evaluate myself, and how I need to implement this. I also very much appreciated the connection made between Aquinas' statement about the priority of the human person in creation with Stein's explanation of encounter with the other, particularly the importance of the human face for human interaction and communion.
From the many descriptions of what the soul is, I was drawn to the concept of the soul as a mustard seed, as something that requires sustenance to grow and develop. Intuitively I knew that the soul needs to be fed and nourished with good things to advance its goodness, but I never stopped to realize that when I seek to further my goodness I am actively feeding my soul. Further along in the lecture, there is a quote from Edith Stein that stuck out to me. She says, "The individual directly determines the way his individuality takes shape". This reminds me of the importance of our facial expressions, body language, and speech. These things communicate our inner life to other beings so they can share in it. They illuminate our subjectivity and individuality because it is in this way that we express ourselves.
I found what you were saying about the human face the most interesting. Each of our faces is made completely unique and special and this reflects our soul. Just the way that no one's face is the same, no one's soul is. I think that the face is such an insight into the soul and is our first look at who a person truly is.
Thank you Dr. McNamara for your insight! I was particularly struck by Edith Stein's observation that "the human individual has a 'proper' proper name: a name given by God that annunciates the innermost essence of the recipient and unlocks for him the mystery of his being hidden in God." Nowhere else in Creation do we encounter something as unique and worthy of love, admiration, and respect as the individual human person. As Stein maintains, one's name helps identify and distinguish him from any other human person, and further point to his essence revealed in his relationship with God.
Something That resonated with me is when you cited St. thomas, " the person is that which is most persect of all nature," Also when you mentioned the most common trancidents are the true and the good. As humans we are "perfect" because of our being, this shows the love of God has for US, making us in his image because he is truly perfect.
Wonderful talk! In particular, I was struck by the discussion of the individuality of each soul. It is interesting to me that each soul can have the same nature, yet also has a formal difference from other souls, which seems to be what Edith Stein argues. The analogy of reflected light was very helpful for my understanding, together with the discussion on choices also forming the soul and it’s individuality in a particular way.
I found Stein's idea of the inner eye beautiful. It is the personable principle and faces the world as well as the inner self. It brings the objective world into union with the subjective self. I love that Dr. McNamara compares it to the mustard seed, pulling in the idea that we have a "gardener" of the soul, God. When we turn inward, we can become more subjective, therefore becoming more objective as we grow in one. Subjectivity and objectivity go hand in hand and when a deeper understanding of one comes to fruition, a deeper understanding of the other also grows. A person can be subjective and objective without losing his or herself and the soul influences the shape of a person.
Many intriguing and counter-cultural points were brought up in this lecture... my two favorites, or ones that stuck with me were first that human person's don't act out of their natures but out of themselves. This is what allows a person to be truly creative. Perhaps it was beacause I grew up with a skewed understanding of actions, but I've considered a person NOT to be defined by their actions. However, now I see that it is a great privilege and beauty to see the indivisibility of a human person and their actions. I like how you connected it to our salvation by saying that the personal dimension of our actions and thus our dominion over our actions is what makes our actions (and thus our very selves) the "nexus" through which our salvation passes through. The other point made that had me reconsider how I view the human person is how our attaining of virtue is our "re-personalization". I've heard of virtue being a re-ordering to our being but never considered the further implications. It is beautiful to think that to grow in virtue (and to creatively participate through our actions in virtue) is to make ourselves more human, more our person.
Thank you Dr. McNamara for your insight. I found it very interesting that as persons we are co-creators in the sense that we share in that nature as images of God but in the actual sense of "creating" our own "face" or personality through our choices and actions. We have a unique ability to shape our own personality by our choices and engagement with reality. We encounter the world through our determined nature objectively, but we do this as unique subjects (and with other subjects). Each unique soul (hue of color) experiences the world uniquely and makes choices based on that unique perspective. This shapes our personality because the soul acts though the body and is affected by each choice and action of the body.
I found two things in particular really interesting. First I loved the idea/fact that the human face is the most meaningful material substance. This really struck me because there is something unique about every human face, but also one thing common to each face: that it expresses the life of God. The human face expresses truth and goodness which is God himself. When people express gestures of kindness, even as simple as smiling, it sticks with me because that goodness reflects the goodness of God. The human face draws us into a deeper level of experiencing that person and God. Second, I thought it was really interesting when you said, "we encounter the world more deeply the more we enter into our subjectivity, and we must remain present to ourself to experience the world deeply." In Christianity, there is such a huge emphasis on selflessness, so it feels almost contradictory to say we need to dive deeper into subjectivity to have a deeper experience of the world. I realize now that my interpretation of entering into subjectivity was wrong. I used to see it as selfishness and being self-absorbed, but now I realize it is simply the acknowledement of our existence and ourselves as a center of reality. If we fail to acknowledge ourselves, then we will only deprive ourslves of the experience God meant for us to have.
I enjoyed reflecting on the face as a mirror of the soul. It was mentioned that the face is the most perfect self revelation of the person. I thought this was quite fascinating especially when connecting it to psychology or physiology and the internal reaction of a person when one sees another face. I love how the eyes and slight facial expressions of a person can reveal so much about a person even if they do not say or do much else. This can be applied to everyday life and conversations, when interacting with people you can be more intentional and see the person in a deeper way by seeing their face and making eye contact.
The connections you draw between Levinas' ideas of the face and how it relates to Stein is fascinating. As the lecture was quite condensed, I had some trouble following it at times, but I found some of your claims, while seeming counterintuitive at first, very insightful. For example, your claims that living from the depth of one's soul allows us to harness our potential better, that being present in a deeper sense rather than a superficial sense actually allows us to relate to other subjects better, and that by being attentive to one's subjectivity actually helps us have a better view of objectivity. I particularly liked the idea of the "I" as within a castle. Finally, I admire your dedication to frequent water breaks; I would end up losing my voice halfway through 😂
I’ve never thought about the power of something as casual as making eye contact. Your explanation makes me think of the people in my life who I feel like have a gaze that seem like they are in love with the person in front of them or seem like they have an insanely deep connection with the person in front of them, even if they have just met. When I think of these people as individuals, they actually are deep minded people who value relationship, so after your explanation it makes more sense why their gaze is so strong, when they are genuinely seeing the other, looking for an encounter at the depth and not just the gate. Also, personality being revealed through actions makes me think of people who put on a front because they want to be liked, I’ll have to ask about that more specifically in class.
What was most impressed upon me was the need to integrate our subjectivity with objectivity, especially because the world today struggles deeply with subjectivism and relativism. It was profoundly impressive that the person only truly grows with the full and genuine integration of the two, and I feel this reflects most deeply our interpersonal and social nature, and through us the communion of the persons of the Trinity. This dual relation is essential to a truly human life, and to the perfection of personal lives. I see this clearly in the reference to the profundity of the person expressed in the eyes, for the eyes look outward upon the world, yet never does one think of this sight as anything but one's own sight. In the very act of the eye is objectivity and subjectivity, so Stein's use of the eye as a metaphor in the structure of the soul makes sense.
22:44 I liked how you talked about how stein says that “The I is not bound to any one location, but has the potential to move about freely”. By suggesting that the self(I) is not tied to a fixed point but can cross over different spaces and states, Stein challenges conventional notions of a stable, unified identity. This unsteadiness implies that the “I” (or the self) is not a static entity confined to a particular context or perspective but is rather capable of changing and transforming, much like its composition that resists linear structure and fixed meaning.
I found it really beautiful to dwell on Saint Edith's Stein view of the conscious eye as "inner germ" of the person, the "gardener" of the soul. Dr. McNamara explained Stein's proposition that the inner eye of our consciousness embraces the entire range of its creative potential when it turns inward to dwell within the "interior castle", the "soul of the soul". Although the eye is capable of turning both outward, engaging with the objective world, and inward, engaging with the subjective interiority of the individual person, it is when we look deep into our souls, and rest in our "interior castles" that we are most able to grow and flourish. This act of "looking inward" and living within the depth of our soul enables us to better know our own subjectivity, and to properly engage with the objective outside world with the depth that it deserves. In other words, it is through looking deep within ourselves and discovering who we are (forming and nourishing ourselves) that we are able to 1) most fully encounter the objective world and 2) truly understand and begin to know the subjectivity of other persons in a much deeper and more meaningful way.
I found this quote interesting: "Since consciousness is oriented outward by nature with a directionality that embraces the whole world the person subject can achieve personal and ethical maturity only through engagement of what is objective in the world." I really like this point because it highlights how true personal and ethical growth comes from engaging with the world beyond ourselves. When we interact with the objective realities and challenges around us, we’re pushed to develop empathy, resilience, and a grounded sense of responsibility. This outward orientation ensures that our values and actions are shaped by real experiences, leading to deeper maturity and understanding.
Something I thought was interesting, and we have mentioned in class before was how the soul’s interior is like a living organism. This correlates to the topic of subjectivity and objectivity of the human person. In order to become more subjective, one must become more objective. Through the understanding of this we can know and observe the world more deeply. Dr. McNamara then mentioned spirituality and that because humans have unique qualities that determine the depth of the soul, every individual is different and distinct from one another. I liked the idea from Stein that the personal quality is a personal gift from God and this is what makes each of us unique in body and soul. Stein says that the deepest and most proper belongs to God alone, and that is something to think about when considering individuality and subjectivity/objectivity.
This lecture brought about many interesting points, and prompted the formation of many deep thoughts. A point that I enjoyed the most regards the soul. Dr. McNamara called the soul "a living organism," and it orchestrates the body. It takes time for the soul to unfold into its full potential, just like the body. Dr. McNamara further compares the soul to that of a mustard seed, which, in time, will unfold into a fully grown mustard tree. Of course, this unfolding of the soul is overseen by what Dr. McNamara calls the "conscious eye," which refers to the human person. This reminded me of the beginning of the course when we introduced the topic of the soul. I had my thoughts of what the soul was, but Dr. McNamara introduced a completely different idea. It was similar to the thoughts brought up in this point. I believe that all people should come to know the soul as Dr. McNamara introduced it: a mustard seed, ready to grow into a fully bloomed mustard tree, orchestrated by its caretaker, the human person.
I found Stein’s use of the metaphor of color fascinating. She demonstrates how each person is unique, down to a singular hue of light that shapes them to the depth of their being. This illustrates how every individual reflects the Divine Essence in a distinct way. Stein's perspective on human individuality shows that each person possesses a unique soul and personality that cannot be replicated or replaced. God imparts to each of us a personal quality that makes human beings inherently unique, meaning a person cannot be multiplied or recreated. Her insights help us understand why a human person is an individually distinct being who reflects God’s goodness. These ideas are particularly relevant in today’s society. If people truly understood this fundamental aspect of being, we would likely avoid many of the problems we face, such as the harmful practices of body mutilation among young men and women.
One of the things that struck me the most was your claim regarding the human face. It really struck me because most people overlook the uniqueness of the human face. People look at faces all the time every day and I think this has detracted from what makes them special. Each face is unique and if studied, offers an insight into the mind of the person behind it. Looking at someone in the eyes and having a conversation with them reveals more so much about their character. I think nowadays though, people have just started looking at people as just another face in the crowd or they are too distracted by all the hubbub of the world around them. I think this is the reason for a lot of conflict between persons. Without this personal connection between people, communicating becomes extremely difficult if not impossible. Edith Stein seems to make the point that our body's are able to reflect what our mind is thinking. If we are able to attend to this and give proper attention to the details of the faces around us, I think we would better be able to encounter the world around us.
I thought it was interesting that Steinian relates the conscious eye as dwelling in the interior castle of the soul. This progression reflects her view that the soul’s true depth is revealed through a journey of spiritual purification and ethical growth.
I enjoyed tihs lecture and thought it was very insightful. I thought the two central points about Thomistic Personalism were interesting. The first was that humans posess an objective metaphysical structure and the second was that humans posess a subjective mode of life. I liked how you related this back to the human face and its significance in having a genuine human encounter.
I found the comment you made at the end that subjectivism has an allure to it very interesting. You've mentioned in class and also in this lecture that philosophers have a tendency to take their own personal idea and theory the whole of philosophy instead of fitting it into the greater scheme of thought. The "allure of subjectivism" can, I think, be seen here. As fallen man, we are both cut off from the original perspective that allowed us to fit ourselves into the grander whole of life with God and others and simultaneously still placed above animals and the rest of the natural world. We are rational by nature, possess an immortal soul, and crave depth and meaning. We point towards this meaning in the way that we are created, and we can see it in others - but it is easier due to both our fallenness and the immediacy of ourselves to turn inward and start attempting to find fulfillment inside of ourselves, as well as all of truth (since we can see things rationally and find truth, but only see from a first-person perspective, why not?). There are, I think, more steps between this and making one's own ideas the basis of philosophy, but they are related.
I found the part about the human face the most interesting. Whenever we meet someone, their face is what captivates our attention. We discover them as a person through their face because it is the most meaningful part of the human. Our face and actions are determined by our inner soul, and since the person and the soul are inexplicably bound together, our outward expressions are harmonious to what we are feeding and growing in our soul. The only way to express truth and goodness through our face is to first have that in our souls. Comparing the soul to a mustard seed is very fitting because it shows that to achieve truth and goodness, we need to be the "gardener" of our soul and feed it good things so that people can grow and develop in virtue, which shapes them into who God truly made them to be.
I find it interesting that transcendentals can be found within all beings because I feel that some of them, like the good and true, are typically only associated with beings with will and reason. The fact that all beings can be categorized as good, true, etc is incredible because it shows the simplicity of God's creation and how everything has qualities of the good and true.
I had never considered that the face of a corpse isn’t truly a face. However, the example proved the importance of the face as a living organ of the body, not as a structure, but in revealing the interior and subjectivity of another. The extreme case showed how meaningful the human face truly is because it connects us to the soul of the other. By making the soul manifest, the face evokes dignity in human interaction and draws us out of ourselves, causing us to think about others more deeply. This outward, objective turn causes us to develop subjectively, eventually helping us to truly become ourselves. Therefore, in a way, through the human face, we can become what God willed us to be, which is an amazing aspect of creation.
It was stated that how a person's personality is expressed and through the actions they perform, a person directly influences how their individuality forms. I find this interesting because it relates to how incredibly unique each person is. No two people, regardless of how similar their external environment is, will have the same individuality. It is something that is shaped from within and is unrepeatable. The inner soul of a person, although not physically visible to others, has the strongest impact on how a person is perceived by the world. The soul manifests itself in various outputs of a person's life and by understanding a person's personality and actions, we can better understand their soul and, as a result, more fully understand them as a person.
I find it an interesting point that the person is made most manifest in the face, in its structure and the subtle muscular movements of the face. The face is the most compelling part of a person. I liked the point that the eyes open inward and the mouth opens outward which emphasizes how integral the face is to the essence of an individual human person.
It is interesting that to fully understand the human person, one must see the correlation of subjectivty and objectivity of an individual. Because humans are of a human spirit, each has subjectivity. If one lives deeply with meaning in their life, then one experiences the world so profoundly that it is even expressed in the face of the person. The spirit's nature includes both objectivity and subjectivity which allows it so that each individual is unique and distinct from another.
I really focused on the idea of a flourishing soul needs the subjective consciousness of the "I" to grow/ for formation and that by only when the "I" dwells in the soul of soul that it shapes the formation of not only the soul but also the world showcasing mans impact and stewardship reaches beyond himself but is most potently done through the formation of his most truest self.
Stein’s idea that the “I” is not stagnant but capable of moving as desired is interesting. She holds the inner most part of the soul is the proper place of the “I” yet it has the capacity to dwell somewhere it is not proper to dwell. The full creative potential of self and world is found in the soul’s soul, yet the “I” is not necessarily dwelling there. The “I” needs to be looking out to the world to fuel its experience and to grow. The “I” enters the objective world via its subjective experience, the best subjective experience being from the soul’s soul (concentrated subjectivity). It seems the in-dwelling of “I” is determined by how it is placed in its subjectivity, looking out towards the objective. The personality follows from the place of “I” in the soul. If “I” is placed properly in the soul’s soul, the person is virtuous, and inversely, if “I” is placed towards some superficial extremity, the person will be more vicious.
I thoroughly enjoyed this lecture and thought it was both insightful and entertaining. The topic that stuck out to me the most was that of which compared the human person to hues of color on a spectrum. Dr. McNamara explains Stein's idea of how humanity is a refraction of God's divine white light. Each person has its own individual and unique hue that both reflects the light of Christ together with other humans, but also alone as a separate being and that each hue is unrepeatable and irreplaceable. I had never heard of this analogy before and I think it is a beautiful way to explain what a human person is and how we are individually made to glorify God and reflect His love. Additionally, I enjoyed the explanation of how we can remain both present with others while fully present to yourself and in a way become more fully yourself. In other words how you must "lose oneself in order to find oneself". Ultimately, I believe Dr. McNamara did a wonderful job at explaining Steins beliefs on the Human and its personhood.
Thank you so much for this lecture! I appreciate your advanced insight into these topics. I also appreciate your comparisons, because they helped me to better understand the topics. In particular, when you compared the human person to the hues of color on the spectrum. I also appreciate Dr. McNamara’s comments and exploration of St Edith Steins ideas regarding the conscious “I”. This lecture helped me to develop an overall better understanding of the human person!
I really enjoyed the attention grabbing and thought-provoking introduction! Some points that McNamara brought up that I also really enjoyed included St. Thomas's idea that, "the term person signifies what is most perfect in all nature." It is interesting to take a step back and appreciate the beauty of humans amid all of the other beauty of God's creation. Also, the continuation of how all actions leave a trace on the acting subject, good ones leading to virtue and bad leading to vice. It is important to remember this, especially when we want to give in to small temptations thinking they won't affect us too much. Striving for goodness always is vital to living a virtuous life. Lastly, McNamara's comments on Stein were extremely intelligent. I enjoyed the comments about the soul dwelling with itself and how the personal eye is at home in the soul. The importance of the personal eye is greater than I had realized before. It is how we take in the world around us and the soul helps us take a position based on what is taken in. I will continue contemplating these ideas and embrace a deeper appreciation for my encounters with the world around me and my encounters with the presence of people around me.
I enjoyed the talk very much. I have always been (no pun intended) facilitated by the question of questions. “To be or not to be”. It really does help clarify truth beauty and goodness. I love the connection you made to Aquinus. “Being is the actuality of all acts and therefore the perfection of all perfections.” To be is to be truthful, to be is to be beautiful, to be is to be good! Makes a person want to simply be! It also makes me think of Gods nature, “I am”.
Within the discussion of the soul and the conscious "I," Stein's understanding that the conscious "I" is the "gardener of the self" was particularly striking to me. The responsibility implied here for the conscious "I" in the growth and unfolding of the soul is incredibly important, and I thought it was beautiful how this responsibility means first and foremost dwelling in the "soul of the soul," or the innermost depth of the person. This illumination of the necessity of dwelling in the deepest part of the soul for its growth and venturing forth is a call to me to evaluate myself, and how I need to implement this. I also very much appreciated the connection made between Aquinas' statement about the priority of the human person in creation with Stein's explanation of encounter with the other, particularly the importance of the human face for human interaction and communion.
From the many descriptions of what the soul is, I was drawn to the concept of the soul as a mustard seed, as something that requires sustenance to grow and develop. Intuitively I knew that the soul needs to be fed and nourished with good things to advance its goodness, but I never stopped to realize that when I seek to further my goodness I am actively feeding my soul.
Further along in the lecture, there is a quote from Edith Stein that stuck out to me. She says, "The individual directly determines the way his individuality takes shape". This reminds me of the importance of our facial expressions, body language, and speech. These things communicate our inner life to other beings so they can share in it. They illuminate our subjectivity and individuality because it is in this way that we express ourselves.
I found what you were saying about the human face the most interesting. Each of our faces is made completely unique and special and this reflects our soul. Just the way that no one's face is the same, no one's soul is. I think that the face is such an insight into the soul and is our first look at who a person truly is.
Thank you Dr. McNamara for your insight! I was particularly struck by Edith Stein's observation that "the human individual has a 'proper' proper name: a name given by God that annunciates the innermost essence of the recipient and unlocks for him the mystery of his being hidden in God." Nowhere else in Creation do we encounter something as unique and worthy of love, admiration, and respect as the individual human person. As Stein maintains, one's name helps identify and distinguish him from any other human person, and further point to his essence revealed in his relationship with God.
Something That resonated with me is when you cited St. thomas, " the person is that which is most persect of all nature," Also when you mentioned the most common trancidents are the true and the good. As humans we are "perfect" because of our being, this shows the love of God has for US, making us in his image because he is truly perfect.
Wonderful talk! In particular, I was struck by the discussion of the individuality of each soul. It is interesting to me that each soul can have the same nature, yet also has a formal difference from other souls, which seems to be what Edith Stein argues. The analogy of reflected light was very helpful for my understanding, together with the discussion on choices also forming the soul and it’s individuality in a particular way.
I found Stein's idea of the inner eye beautiful. It is the personable principle and faces the world as well as the inner self. It brings the objective world into union with the subjective self. I love that Dr. McNamara compares it to the mustard seed, pulling in the idea that we have a "gardener" of the soul, God. When we turn inward, we can become more subjective, therefore becoming more objective as we grow in one. Subjectivity and objectivity go hand in hand and when a deeper understanding of one comes to fruition, a deeper understanding of the other also grows. A person can be subjective and objective without losing his or herself and the soul influences the shape of a person.
Many intriguing and counter-cultural points were brought up in this lecture... my two favorites, or ones that stuck with me were first that human person's don't act out of their natures but out of themselves. This is what allows a person to be truly creative. Perhaps it was beacause I grew up with a skewed understanding of actions, but I've considered a person NOT to be defined by their actions. However, now I see that it is a great privilege and beauty to see the indivisibility of a human person and their actions. I like how you connected it to our salvation by saying that the personal dimension of our actions and thus our dominion over our actions is what makes our actions (and thus our very selves) the "nexus" through which our salvation passes through. The other point made that had me reconsider how I view the human person is how our attaining of virtue is our "re-personalization". I've heard of virtue being a re-ordering to our being but never considered the further implications. It is beautiful to think that to grow in virtue (and to creatively participate through our actions in virtue) is to make ourselves more human, more our person.
Thank you Dr. McNamara for your insight. I found it very interesting that as persons we are co-creators in the sense that we share in that nature as images of God but in the actual sense of "creating" our own "face" or personality through our choices and actions. We have a unique ability to shape our own personality by our choices and engagement with reality. We encounter the world through our determined nature objectively, but we do this as unique subjects (and with other subjects). Each unique soul (hue of color) experiences the world uniquely and makes choices based on that unique perspective. This shapes our personality because the soul acts though the body and is affected by each choice and action of the body.
I found two things in particular really interesting. First I loved the idea/fact that the human face is the most meaningful material substance. This really struck me because there is something unique about every human face, but also one thing common to each face: that it expresses the life of God. The human face expresses truth and goodness which is God himself. When people express gestures of kindness, even as simple as smiling, it sticks with me because that goodness reflects the goodness of God. The human face draws us into a deeper level of experiencing that person and God. Second, I thought it was really interesting when you said, "we encounter the world more deeply the more we enter into our subjectivity, and we must remain present to ourself to experience the world deeply." In Christianity, there is such a huge emphasis on selflessness, so it feels almost contradictory to say we need to dive deeper into subjectivity to have a deeper experience of the world. I realize now that my interpretation of entering into subjectivity was wrong. I used to see it as selfishness and being self-absorbed, but now I realize it is simply the acknowledement of our existence and ourselves as a center of reality. If we fail to acknowledge ourselves, then we will only deprive ourslves of the experience God meant for us to have.
I enjoyed reflecting on the face as a mirror of the soul. It was mentioned that the face is the most perfect self revelation of the person. I thought this was quite fascinating especially when connecting it to psychology or physiology and the internal reaction of a person when one sees another face. I love how the eyes and slight facial expressions of a person can reveal so much about a person even if they do not say or do much else. This can be applied to everyday life and conversations, when interacting with people you can be more intentional and see the person in a deeper way by seeing their face and making eye contact.
The connections you draw between Levinas' ideas of the face and how it relates to Stein is fascinating. As the lecture was quite condensed, I had some trouble following it at times, but I found some of your claims, while seeming counterintuitive at first, very insightful. For example, your claims that living from the depth of one's soul allows us to harness our potential better, that being present in a deeper sense rather than a superficial sense actually allows us to relate to other subjects better, and that by being attentive to one's subjectivity actually helps us have a better view of objectivity. I particularly liked the idea of the "I" as within a castle. Finally, I admire your dedication to frequent water breaks; I would end up losing my voice halfway through 😂
I’ve never thought about the power of something as casual as making eye contact. Your explanation makes me think of the people in my life who I feel like have a gaze that seem like they are in love with the person in front of them or seem like they have an insanely deep connection with the person in front of them, even if they have just met. When I think of these people as individuals, they actually are deep minded people who value relationship, so after your explanation it makes more sense why their gaze is so strong, when they are genuinely seeing the other, looking for an encounter at the depth and not just the gate. Also, personality being revealed through actions makes me think of people who put on a front because they want to be liked, I’ll have to ask about that more specifically in class.
What was most impressed upon me was the need to integrate our subjectivity with objectivity, especially because the world today struggles deeply with subjectivism and relativism. It was profoundly impressive that the person only truly grows with the full and genuine integration of the two, and I feel this reflects most deeply our interpersonal and social nature, and through us the communion of the persons of the Trinity. This dual relation is essential to a truly human life, and to the perfection of personal lives. I see this clearly in the reference to the profundity of the person expressed in the eyes, for the eyes look outward upon the world, yet never does one think of this sight as anything but one's own sight. In the very act of the eye is objectivity and subjectivity, so Stein's use of the eye as a metaphor in the structure of the soul makes sense.
22:44 I liked how you talked about how stein says that “The I is not bound to any one location, but has the potential to move about freely”. By suggesting that the self(I) is not tied to a fixed point but can cross over different spaces and states, Stein challenges conventional notions of a stable, unified identity. This unsteadiness implies that the “I” (or the self) is not a static entity confined to a particular context or perspective but is rather capable of changing and transforming, much like its composition that resists linear structure and fixed meaning.
I found it really beautiful to dwell on Saint Edith's Stein view of the conscious eye as "inner germ" of the person, the "gardener" of the soul. Dr. McNamara explained Stein's proposition that the inner eye of our consciousness embraces the entire range of its creative potential when it turns inward to dwell within the "interior castle", the "soul of the soul". Although the eye is capable of turning both outward, engaging with the objective world, and inward, engaging with the subjective interiority of the individual person, it is when we look deep into our souls, and rest in our "interior castles" that we are most able to grow and flourish. This act of "looking inward" and living within the depth of our soul enables us to better know our own subjectivity, and to properly engage with the objective outside world with the depth that it deserves. In other words, it is through looking deep within ourselves and discovering who we are (forming and nourishing ourselves) that we are able to 1) most fully encounter the objective world and 2) truly understand and begin to know the subjectivity of other persons in a much deeper and more meaningful way.
I found this quote interesting: "Since consciousness is oriented outward by nature with a directionality that embraces the whole world the person subject can achieve personal and ethical maturity only through engagement of what is objective in the world." I really like this point because it highlights how true personal and ethical growth comes from engaging with the world beyond ourselves. When we interact with the objective realities and challenges around us, we’re pushed to develop empathy, resilience, and a grounded sense of responsibility. This outward orientation ensures that our values and actions are shaped by real experiences, leading to deeper maturity and understanding.
Something I thought was interesting, and we have mentioned in class before was how the soul’s interior is like a living organism. This correlates to the topic of subjectivity and objectivity of the human person. In order to become more subjective, one must become more objective. Through the understanding of this we can know and observe the world more deeply. Dr. McNamara then mentioned spirituality and that because humans have unique qualities that determine the depth of the soul, every individual is different and distinct from one another. I liked the idea from Stein that the personal quality is a personal gift from God and this is what makes each of us unique in body and soul. Stein says that the deepest and most proper belongs to God alone, and that is something to think about when considering individuality and subjectivity/objectivity.
This lecture brought about many interesting points, and prompted the formation of many deep thoughts. A point that I enjoyed the most regards the soul. Dr. McNamara called the soul "a living organism," and it orchestrates the body. It takes time for the soul to unfold into its full potential, just like the body. Dr. McNamara further compares the soul to that of a mustard seed, which, in time, will unfold into a fully grown mustard tree. Of course, this unfolding of the soul is overseen by what Dr. McNamara calls the "conscious eye," which refers to the human person. This reminded me of the beginning of the course when we introduced the topic of the soul. I had my thoughts of what the soul was, but Dr. McNamara introduced a completely different idea. It was similar to the thoughts brought up in this point. I believe that all people should come to know the soul as Dr. McNamara introduced it: a mustard seed, ready to grow into a fully bloomed mustard tree, orchestrated by its caretaker, the human person.
I found Stein’s use of the metaphor of color fascinating. She demonstrates how each person is unique, down to a singular hue of light that shapes them to the depth of their being. This illustrates how every individual reflects the Divine Essence in a distinct way. Stein's perspective on human individuality shows that each person possesses a unique soul and personality that cannot be replicated or replaced. God imparts to each of us a personal quality that makes human beings inherently unique, meaning a person cannot be multiplied or recreated. Her insights help us understand why a human person is an individually distinct being who reflects God’s goodness. These ideas are particularly relevant in today’s society. If people truly understood this fundamental aspect of being, we would likely avoid many of the problems we face, such as the harmful practices of body mutilation among young men and women.
One of the things that struck me the most was your claim regarding the human face. It really struck me because most people overlook the uniqueness of the human face. People look at faces all the time every day and I think this has detracted from what makes them special. Each face is unique and if studied, offers an insight into the mind of the person behind it. Looking at someone in the eyes and having a conversation with them reveals more so much about their character. I think nowadays though, people have just started looking at people as just another face in the crowd or they are too distracted by all the hubbub of the world around them. I think this is the reason for a lot of conflict between persons. Without this personal connection between people, communicating becomes extremely difficult if not impossible. Edith Stein seems to make the point that our body's are able to reflect what our mind is thinking. If we are able to attend to this and give proper attention to the details of the faces around us, I think we would better be able to encounter the world around us.
I thought it was interesting that Steinian relates the conscious eye as dwelling in the interior castle of the soul. This progression reflects her view that the soul’s true depth is revealed through a journey of spiritual purification and ethical growth.
I enjoyed tihs lecture and thought it was very insightful. I thought the two central points about Thomistic Personalism were interesting. The first was that humans posess an objective metaphysical structure and the second was that humans posess a subjective mode of life. I liked how you related this back to the human face and its significance in having a genuine human encounter.
I found the comment you made at the end that subjectivism has an allure to it very interesting. You've mentioned in class and also in this lecture that philosophers have a tendency to take their own personal idea and theory the whole of philosophy instead of fitting it into the greater scheme of thought. The "allure of subjectivism" can, I think, be seen here. As fallen man, we are both cut off from the original perspective that allowed us to fit ourselves into the grander whole of life with God and others and simultaneously still placed above animals and the rest of the natural world. We are rational by nature, possess an immortal soul, and crave depth and meaning. We point towards this meaning in the way that we are created, and we can see it in others - but it is easier due to both our fallenness and the immediacy of ourselves to turn inward and start attempting to find fulfillment inside of ourselves, as well as all of truth (since we can see things rationally and find truth, but only see from a first-person perspective, why not?). There are, I think, more steps between this and making one's own ideas the basis of philosophy, but they are related.
I found the part about the human face the most interesting. Whenever we meet someone, their face is what captivates our attention. We discover them as a person through their face because it is the most meaningful part of the human. Our face and actions are determined by our inner soul, and since the person and the soul are inexplicably bound together, our outward expressions are harmonious to what we are feeding and growing in our soul. The only way to express truth and goodness through our face is to first have that in our souls. Comparing the soul to a mustard seed is very fitting because it shows that to achieve truth and goodness, we need to be the "gardener" of our soul and feed it good things so that people can grow and develop in virtue, which shapes them into who God truly made them to be.
I find it interesting that transcendentals can be found within all beings because I feel that some of them, like the good and true, are typically only associated with beings with will and reason. The fact that all beings can be categorized as good, true, etc is incredible because it shows the simplicity of God's creation and how everything has qualities of the good and true.
I had never considered that the face of a corpse isn’t truly a face. However, the example proved the importance of the face as a living organ of the body, not as a structure, but in revealing the interior and subjectivity of another. The extreme case showed how meaningful the human face truly is because it connects us to the soul of the other. By making the soul manifest, the face evokes dignity in human interaction and draws us out of ourselves, causing us to think about others more deeply. This outward, objective turn causes us to develop subjectively, eventually helping us to truly become ourselves. Therefore, in a way, through the human face, we can become what God willed us to be, which is an amazing aspect of creation.
It was stated that how a person's personality is expressed and through the actions they perform, a person directly influences how their individuality forms. I find this interesting because it relates to how incredibly unique each person is. No two people, regardless of how similar their external environment is, will have the same individuality. It is something that is shaped from within and is unrepeatable. The inner soul of a person, although not physically visible to others, has the strongest impact on how a person is perceived by the world. The soul manifests itself in various outputs of a person's life and by understanding a person's personality and actions, we can better understand their soul and, as a result, more fully understand them as a person.
I find it an interesting point that the person is made most manifest in the face, in its structure and the subtle muscular movements of the face. The face is the most compelling part of a person. I liked the point that the eyes open inward and the mouth opens outward which emphasizes how integral the face is to the essence of an individual human person.
It is interesting that to fully understand the human person, one must see the correlation of subjectivty and objectivity of an individual. Because humans are of a human spirit, each has subjectivity. If one lives deeply with meaning in their life, then one experiences the world so profoundly that it is even expressed in the face of the person. The spirit's nature includes both objectivity and subjectivity which allows it so that each individual is unique and distinct from another.
I really focused on the idea of a flourishing soul needs the subjective consciousness of the "I" to grow/ for formation and that by only when the "I" dwells in the soul of soul that it shapes the formation of not only the soul but also the world showcasing mans impact and stewardship reaches beyond himself but is most potently done through the formation of his most truest self.
Stein’s idea that the “I” is not stagnant but capable of moving as desired is interesting. She holds the inner most part of the soul is the proper place of the “I” yet it has the capacity to dwell somewhere it is not proper to dwell. The full creative potential of self and world is found in the soul’s soul, yet the “I” is not necessarily dwelling there. The “I” needs to be looking out to the world to fuel its experience and to grow. The “I” enters the objective world via its subjective experience, the best subjective experience being from the soul’s soul (concentrated subjectivity). It seems the in-dwelling of “I” is determined by how it is placed in its subjectivity, looking out towards the objective. The personality follows from the place of “I” in the soul. If “I” is placed properly in the soul’s soul, the person is virtuous, and inversely, if “I” is placed towards some superficial extremity, the person will be more vicious.