Julián Marías, Part II: Philosophical Anthropology

His thought can be referred to as Personalism. According to Marías, life recognizes itself

When philosophical reflection is practiced sincerely, the findings and conclusions reached by this activity also serve as a humbling, cathartic undertaking. Humility is achieved by a thinker’s desire to use the demands made on us by reality as the starting point of our need for understanding, and not as expedient social/political ends.

Perhaps this is why when life moves along well, mankind seems to grow in existential stature, like an arrogant pheasant showing off its plumage. In other words, when life is “what I think it ought to be,” then we do not bother with the significance of essential categories of reality, because we are under the illusion that all reality originates with my view of it. This narcissistic attitude, however, is a sure vehicle for us to arrive at profound disillusionment, and often, as we have repeatedly witnessed throughout history, also plants the seed of social-political violence.

Marías describes philosophical reflection as responsible vision because it serves as the foundation of responsible action. To qualify philosophical reflection as responsible is interesting for several reasons. Marias considers that truth – here he uses the Greek word Aletheia – is such that it always hides from man. For this reason, whoever directs his energy into the pursuit of uncovering truth does so from a form of courage that may or may not know in advance the dangers that he will encounter.

Philosophical reflection is a paradoxical activity. Yet, as Ortega has stated, this paradox is only obvious to those who reflect. Philosophical reflection tries to answer concerns that are often intuitive. Ironically, the answers to some questions are sometimes not fully demonstrable, nonetheless, their veracity cannot be denied. We often find it useless to reflect about some of the more obvious aspects of reality. It is only when we make progress from what we deem as obvious to true understanding that we come to value philosophical reflection as a vital activity. Philosophical reflection is cultivated from existential inquietude.

However, existential inquietude does not have to mean a heavy-handed assault on reality and the security that we enjoy in our personal lives. This is a myth or misguided impression that some relativists have promoted, Marías’ thought on existential questions eschews these popularly destructive notions. Man cannot live in the absence of certainty.

Human consciousness does not exist as an abstraction. Human reality, Marias explains, does not fulfill the simple condition of merely being another participant in “life,” but rather as the modality that separates us from the background that is nature. Marías writes: “The first significance of the expression ‘life’ appears when everyone of us talks of his life, that is, when this is merely a question of my life.”

Julián Marías’ most insightful and poignant expression as a philosopher is perhaps found in a book that he published in 1971entitled Metaphysical Anthropology: The Empirical Structure of Human Life. While many historians of philosophy only know him as an intellectual disciple of Ortega y Gasset, Marías has nonetheless been very successful in developing his thought, in what is known as metaphysical anthropology. This line of thinking explains man not as a phantasmagoric, worldly appearance (phainemenon) – as a mere biological being – but rather as spirit that knows itself through intuition. This is the human person. Marías tells us: “My collected work employs the idea of ‘the empirical structure’ of human existence. This reached its apotheosis in my book Metaphysical Anthropology (1970). My writings dating back to the last thirty years are an exploration of the diverse dimensions of that structure and they have permitted me to come to understand many questions.”

Marías views mankind as consisting of individual, differentiated persons that exist in an objective world. As spirit, man must transcend this objectifying condition. Human reality presents itself as resistance, or a set of obstacles for man. The work of the thinker consists of seeking and cataloguing the essences that rule over human existence. Marías adds: “Empirical structure exists between the notion of ‘personal life’ and every concrete and individual life. This is the only way that we can come to realize the form of personal life which we know directly, that is, man.”
According to Marías, man can never be thought of as being a collective or abstract concept. There are no abstract men and women, only concrete individuals. Man is essentially a solitary entity who is coerced by the passage of time to learn to create life-projects. Life, as Marías suggests, must always be justified. This is an existential understanding of human existence. Life is biographical in make-up. This means that man can know itself only from the inside, and only after exerting personal sacrifice. Experience alone teaches us very little, unless we are prepared to assimilate its lazy perceptions. Life, then, is always proactive.

In Metaphysical Anthropology we discover that man – always in our capacity as individuals – is essentially lost in what is referred to as the social realm. Man organizes his existence in a social manner, but this is not the defining condition of man. Human life, biologically speaking, is not synonymous with that private and subjective entity that we embrace as “I.” Marías argues, as many other existentialists that human existence is not given us ready-made. On the contrary, human life is a process that seeks to know itself as self-understanding. This is a fine example of the fluidity of life-as-resistance.

Marias refers to the work of philosophical vocation as responsible vision. This is a responsible vision because it is not the role of thinkers to invent worlds or relative realities that correspond with their personal projects. Instead, thinkers should only respond to the demands of reality proper, which is always a step ahead of our desires.

His thought can be referred to as Personalism. According to Marías, life recognizes itself – if we are to remain sincere – as an encounter with personal essence. The tension that exists between the world and human consciousness, and our knowledge of it, can never take place in the absence of persons. If only for this very interesting detail, man continues to be the conscious center of the cosmos, as we know it.

The importance of metaphysical anthropology is related to vocation because it confronts the man of flesh and bones with his individual destiny, not textbook abstractions. Human primal freedom cannot be communicated using fashionable theories or collective social-political categories.

The Americano / Agencies