


































AQUINO VOLUME3 ISSUE 3 JUNE 2023


143

Abstract

Philosophical anthropology is concerned with the questions of what man is and his place 
in the universe. Philosophers, thinkers, and intellectuals of all ages have provided a 
variety of answers to these questions. Man has been defined as "a rational animal," 
"God's image," and "a recent evolutionary product on our planet." According to Max 
Scheler, these three views are incompatible with one another and thus lack a unified view 
of man. He believes that the true nature of man remains unknown to us. In light of different 
philosophers' conceptions of man, this study exposes and evaluates the concept of man 
against the backdrop of Scheler's philosophical anthropology.  The work examines Max 
Scheler's concept of man as presented in his book man's place in nature, as well as 
references to other relevant materials. The significance of this study is that it allows man 
to gain a better understanding of himself from Scheler's perspective. The researcher 
employs the analytic method of research. The researcher discovers during the course of 
this work that man can only actualize his being when he emerges from the illusions of his 
impulses into his conscious self.
Keywords:  Philo-Anthropological, Differentiation, Man and Universe.

Introduction
The question of what man is and where he fits in the universe is central to philosophical 
anthropology. Philosophers, thinkers, and intellectuals of all ages have provided a variety 
of answers to these questions.

Max Scheler observes that these perspectives are incompatible with one another and that 
the true nature of man remains unknown to us. As a result, various philosophers, 
theologians, and scientists' answers to what man is and his place in the cosmos are limited 
and unsatisfactory. According to Scheler, the limitations of these answers stem from the 
fact that man has only been studied in parts rather than in his entirety. In this regard, 
Scheler observes that, as valuable as the special sciences dealing with man such as 
psychology, physiology, biology, and so on are, they tend to conceal rather than reveal his 
nature. Because of the partiality of the responses thus far, a wholistic definition of man 
remains elusive. Can philosophical anthropology provide the sought-after wholistic 
definition based on these partial answers? Max Scheler believes so.

Man and its various definitions
The issue of man's unique nature and place in the universe is not a new one in the world of 
philosophers, scholars, and intellectuals. To name a few, philosophers such as Plato, 

A PHILO-ANTHROPOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION OF MAN FROM 
OTHER BEINGS IN THE UNIVERSE: A SCHELERIAN PERCEPTIVE 

PETER C. OSUJI, PH.D. 
CEBU, PHILIPPINES.



144

Aristotle, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst 
Cassirer, Martin Buber, Ortega Y Gasset, and Jean Paul Sartre have addressed this issue. 
As a result, it has been articulated from antiquity to the present. However, some of the 
above-mentioned philosophers' definitions of man will be considered.

Plato (1967) defines man as a being composed of the body and the soul. In his 
REPUBLIC, Plato notes that "this composite structure of body and soul is called a living 
being" (Plato, 1967, p. 496). Despite this composite structure, Plato sees man essentially 
from the point of view of the soul because, for him, the soul is the principle or 
indispensable part without which one cannot talk of man, and thus this part that is 
indispensable defines man (Plato, 1967, p. 807). This is because, according to Plato, man 
is essentially made up of three parts: the soul, the body, and the mind. Plato believes that 
the intellectual or rational part of man's soul allows him to realise himself as a man. This 
demonstrates that the higher one's intellectual level, the more one becomes what one is 
supposed to be, namely man. Given this, it is clear that for Plato, man is primarily the soul 
due to the soul's rationality or intellectuality.

Unlike Plato, Aristotle (1975) considers the body to be an essential part of man. For him, 
man is essentially made up of body and soul. The soul plays the role of the form in man. It 
does not appear to be incorruptible, that is, capable of escaping the corruption of the body 
and thus immortal, as Plato believed. Aristotle's conception of the soul as the form of the 
body suggested an organic unity of man, which could be defined as a "rational animal" 
(Aristotle, 1975).

In viewing man as a union of soul and body tainted by original sin and motivated by the 
happiness principle, St Augustine (1958) drew on scriptural as well as philosophical 
sources. Augustine, inspired by Plato, maintained the same dichotomy between soul and 
body, the reduction of man to soul, and the complete autonomy of intellective knowledge 
with regard to any contribution of the body. Augustine also believes that every living 
creature [man] has both a soul and a body. He claims that the soul is unquestionably 
superior to the body of these two components. Augustine maintains that even when the 
soul is vicious and weak, it is superior to the healthiest and strongest body. Since, 
according to Augustine, the soul is better than the body and higher by nature, he asserts 
that the soul is better than the body, just as gold, even when dirty, is worth more than a 
sliver or lead, however pure (Augustine, 1958, p. 474). Augustine also describes man as 
"the image of God." "When God created man in his own image, He endowed him with a 
soul so endowed with reason and intelligence that it ranks man higher than all the other 
creatures of the earth, sea, and air," he writes (Augustine, 1958, p. 265). Augustine 
maintains that "we ourselves can recognise in ourselves an image of God, in the sense of 
the Trinity," bolstering the idea of man as an image of God, a being created by God in his 
image and likeness (Augustine, 1958, p. 235). For him, it's just an image, and a very 
distant one at that. As a result, there is no issue of identity or consubstantiality with God. 
Nonetheless, it is an image that, by nature, is closer to God than anything else in all 
creation, and one that can be perfected into a still closer resemblance through 
transforming grace... 235 (Augustine, 1958).

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



145

In his definition of man, Aquinas (1939) praised the efforts of his predecessors Plato and 
Aristotle. He maintained that Plato's anthropology was in significant agreement with faith 
but lacked philosophical depth. Philosophically, Aristotle's concept of man was superior, 
but it was incompatible with Christian revelation. In the same vein, he agreed that man is 
fundamentally made up of body and soul. Following Aristotle, Thomas contends that man 
is not essentially the soul, but rather that there is a profound and substantial unity between 
the soul and body. As a result, for Thomas, body and soul are so intertwined that the soul 
cannot be found in any part of the body. As a result, the soul is present in the entire body as 
well as in each individual part of the body.

Thomas, like Augustine, believes that man is an image of God (Aquinas, 1939, p. 373). 
He, on the other hand, sees God as a kind of prototype for man. He maintains that unless 
the image is perfect in every way, it is not equal to its prototype. Because finite man cannot 
be perfect, he will always be an imperfect image of God.

Descartes (1993) believes that man is "a thinking thing," and thus asserts in his 
MEDITATION, "I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or 
intellect..., yet I am a true thing and am truly existing; but what kind of thing? I have 
already said it: a thinking thing" (Descartes, 1993, p. 19). He maintains that his thinking 
self is distinct from his physical self. The essence of man is that which is distinct from his 
body and thinks independently of the body.

Descartes later realised that the thinking thing makes use of the body because sensation is 
experienced through the body. Descartes writes in this regard, "nature also teaches not 
merely that I am present to my body in the way that a sailor is present in a ship, but that I 
am most tightly joined and, so to speak, commingled with it, so that I and the body 
constitute one single thing." For if this were not the case, I, as a mere thinking being, 
would not feel pain when the body is injured; rather, I would perceive the wound through 
pure intellect, just as a sailor perceives whether anything in his ship is broken through 
sight. And, instead of having mixed feelings of hunger and thirst, I should recognise when 
my body requires food or drink. For clearly, these sensations of thirst, hunger, pain, and so 
on are nothing more than a confused mode of thinking resulting from the union, or 
commingling, of the mind and the body (Descartes, 1993, p. 53). As a result, man is a 
composite of body and soul for him.

Hegel (1953) sees man as a synthesis of nature and spirit, the essence of which is spirit. 
Hegel asserts in his work REASON IN HISTORY that man is "part nature and part spirit, 
but his essence is spirit" (Hegel, 1953, p. xxv). In light of this emphasis on spirit, Hegel 
considers man to be a spiritual being. Thus, as man grows spiritually, he becomes more 
conscious of himself; and as he becomes more conscious of himself, he becomes himself.
According to Buber (1968), man is "the creature capable of entering into living relation 
with the world and things, with men both as individuals and as many, and with the 
'mystery of being,' which is dimly apparent through all this but infinitely transcends it" 
(Buber, 1968, p. 16). Through this living relationship with things, one's life becomes open 
to another, allowing one to experience the mystery of the other being within the mystery 

OSUJI A Philo-anthropological Differentiation Of Man ...      



146

of one's own. This conception of man implies that man is a social being who discovers 
himself through interactions with others.

An Exposition of Max Scheler's philosophical anthropology
Because of the various approaches to him, man as a being in the cosmos has been 
understood differently. In this regard, Scheler (1962) maintains in his Man's Place in 
Nature that there are three irreconcilable ways of thinking about man in the Western 
world. He defined these three traditional ways of thinking about man as "the Jewish-
Christian tradition, the Greek tradition, and modern science and genetic psychology" 
(Scheler, 1962, p. 5). According to Scheler (1962), the ideas of man as "an image of God," 
a "rational animal," and a "evolutionary animal" are incompatible. "As a result, we have 
scientific, philosophical, and theological explanations for man." As a result, we lack a 
unified concept of man (p.5).

Max Scheler began by discussing the nature of man in relation to animals and plants, as 
well as man's unique metaphysical place in the universe, in order to arrive at a unified 
definition of man. According to Scheler, the word man has a "deceptive ambiguity" in this 
context (Scheler, 1962). According to Scheler (1962), man has been referred to as "a being 
that is part of the world of living things in general" (p.7). For him, man represents the 
specific morphological characteristics of a subclass of vertebrate and mammals, which is 
why the human species [man] is simply another branch of the animal kingdom in 
scientific discourse. However, according to Max Scheler, "regardless of the specific form 
of this conceptual model, the living being described as man is not only subordinate to the 
concept "animal," but occupies a relatively small corner of the animal kingdom (Scheler, 
1962).

Man, on the other hand, is fundamentally different from anything found in the animal 
kingdom or among living things in general. In fact, it denotes a set of characteristics that 
must be distinguished from the concept "animal," which encompasses all mammals and 
vertebrates. In this sense, according to Max Scheler, man is "much opposed to infusorium 
stentor as to the chimpanzee, although it is obvious that man resembles the Chimpanzee" 
(Scheler, 1962).

For Scheler, man on this level must have a different meaning and an entirely different 
origin than the former, which examines man as a being who is a part of the world of living 
things in general (Scheler, 1962). As a result, Scheler maintains that the essential nature of 
man is this second concept of man, which examines man not as a being that is part of the 
world of living things in general.

The differentiation of Man from other beings in the Universe
In contrast to the naturalists' or evolutionists' views of man, which reduced man to the 
level of psychic or natural being (animal and plant), Scheler maintains that there is 
something unique to man that is not based on intelligence. It would be a mistake, 
according to Scheler, to think that the new element that gives man his unique 
characteristics is nothing more than a new essential form of being added to the previous 

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



147

stages of psychic life-the vital impulse, instinct, associative memory, intelligence, and 
choice; in other words, an element that still belongs to psychic and vital functions and 
capacities and falls under the jurisdiction of psychology and biology (Scheler, p.36). 
Scheler, on the other hand, claims that "the nature of man...exceeds the capacity for choice 
and intelligence and would not be reached even if we were to enlarge these powers in a 
quantitative sense to infinity" (p.36).

Scheler refers to this new element, this new principle as "the spirit" (p.36). According to 
him, this spirit makes human life highly independent of drives and independent of 
attachment to environment, in sharp contrast to essentially environment-stricken 
animals. The spirit, according to Scheler, "is not a principle found within the domain of 
psychic life because it transcends what we call life, even life in man" (p.36). The spirit, 
according to Scheler, is a new phenomenon that cannot be derived from the natural 
evolution of life but, if reducible to anything, leads back to the ultimate Ground of Being, 
of which life is a particular manifestation (p.36).

Scheler contrasts this new principle (spirit) with the Greek "reason," which "in the total 
universe in which man alone of all creatures participates" (p.5). Scheler defines the spirit 
in such a way that it includes reason but much more than reason, as he writes: The term 
spirit encompasses the concept of reason, which includes intuition of essences as well as 
conceptual thought and a class of voluntary and emotional acts such as kindness, love, 
remorse, reverence, wonder, bliss, despair, and free decision (Scheler, p.36).

Scheler refers to a person as the centre of action in which this new element or principle, 
spirit, appears with a finite mode of being. According to Scheler, a person is "that unity 
which exists for acts of all possible essential differences in so far as these acts are thought 
to be executed" (Scheler, 1973. p.382). 

In this regard, a person becomes the spirit's focal point of action. As a result, a person is a 
being with a spiritual nature. He becomes immaterial in his spiritual nature, whether 
completely immaterial, with no extrinsic dependence on matter, or partially immaterial, 
with some extrinsic dependence on matter. We have pure spirit in the first place, and spirit 
in matter in the second (Donceel, p.448). However, this is the fundamental concept of 
"man": he is a spiritual being. As a result, it is this spirit that enables man to transcend 
himself, which is lacking in other beings (animal and plant) in the universe.

Furthermore, man gains tremendous freedom as a result of this spirit. As a result, freedom 
is yet another title for man's unique nature. Aside from all special organisation, the core of 
his nature is this movement (transcending or freedom), this spiritual act of transcending 
himself... Scheler (1973, p.289). Also, according to Scheler, if we place at the centre of 
this concept of spirit a special function of knowledge that it alone can provide, then the 
essential characteristic of the spiritual being, regardless of its psychological make-up, is 
its existential liberation from the organic world, its freedom and detachability from the 
bondage and pressure of life, its dependence on all that belongs to life, including its own 
drive-motivated intelligence (Scheler, 1962. p.37).

OSUJI A Philo-anthropological Differentiation Of Man ...      



148

Only man has the capacity (of freedom) to separate the drive from instinctive behaviour 
and to separate the state of pleasure from functional enjoyment due to the presence of the 
spirit in him. Man, as a "freedom" animal, can be said to be "more or less than an animal, 
but he is never simply an animal" (Nota, 1983, p.159), but a spiritual being who is no 
longer a subject to his drive and environment, thus he is free, objectifies his world, and can 
go into "world openness" (Scheler, 1962. p.37).

Objectification
Objectification is one of man's basic characteristics. In this regard, man is the only being 
in the universe who objectsifies his surroundings due to the presence of the spirit within 
him. According to Scheler, man is capable of expanding his environment into the 
dimension of a world and resisting objectification through the power of the spirit. 
According to Scheler, man is capable of objectifying his own physiological and 
psychological states, as well as every psychic experience and vital function. To determine 
this, Scheler claims that "spirit belongs to a being capable of strict objectification" 
(Scheler, 1962. p.37). Insofar as man is a spirit bearer, Scheler believes he "must have 
reversed, dynamically and in principle, its relationship both to external reality and to itself 
as compared with the animal, including its intelligence" (Scheler, 1962. p.37).

Objectification implies a liberation of spiritual knowledge from the confines of narrow 
environmental pleasures and interests. Detachment from the environment is required in 
order to achieve an unlimited expression of man's interest to the point of being open to the 
world. As a result, "becoming human is to acquire this openness to the world by virtue of 
the spirit" (Scheler, 1962, p.39), rather than being limited to a limited field of interaction 
as in animal life.

Scheler claims that animal has no object, in contrast to man's objective nature as a being 
with an unlimited world or who can turn his world into his own test. For him, an animal 
lived ecstatically immersed in its environment, which it carries with it like a snail's shell. 
In fact, an animal lacks the ability to transform his environment into a world and is 
incapable of resisting its strong drives. This act of objectification, however, is unique to 
man. It is the most formal category of the spirit's logical aspect. 

Objectification is sought first and foremost as a human value. It is a prerequisite for 
inventiveness and a means of creative behaviour diversification. Instead of seeing and 
relating to things solely in terms of predetermined needs, as animals do, man sees and 
interacts with them in a variety of ways. Objectification is a form of detachment from 
reality that is so far for a being that it could be properly described as a universalization of 
attachment, because it expresses man's unbounded appetite for a being that extends 
beyond the points of interest given in animal knowledge. Because of man's objective 
knowledge, it is obvious that only man has the ability to objectify or transform his 
environment.

As a result, man is the only "protestant" who does not submit to the dominance of his 
environment. He is not constrained by his surroundings because he can exhibit behaviour 

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



149

that is visible to the rest of the world to an infinite degree. Thus, "to become human is to 
acquire this openness to the world through the virtue of the spirit" (Scheler, 1962. p.37).

Self-consciousness
According to Scheler, another characteristic of a spiritual being is self-consciousness, 
which is solely an essential nature of man that is given as a result of the presence of the 
spirit. Self-consciousness, according to Scheler, is an act of "concentration," a meta-
reflex action in the central psychic switchboard. It is a "reflexive act," which means that 
man's consciousness is capable of reflecting perfectly upon itself; thus, it is conscious of 
being conscious and aware of being aware.

An animal according to Scheler, hears and sees without realising it. Regardless of an 
animal's psyche's functionality and usability, Scheler maintains that it is not a potential 
psychologist or physiologist. Even though an animal is conscious, it is not self-conscious, 
so it is unaware that it is conscious of itself. In fact, Scheler simply states that an animal is 
not self-conscious. It does not own itself, is not its own master, and is not aware of its own 
existence. As a result, the animal does not experience its drives as its own, but as a 
dynamic push and pull emanating from the environment. Scheler believes that the 
animal's environmental factors are determined by attraction and repulsion, just as the 
monkey who jumps hither and yonder lives in successive states of ecstasy. It lacks a will 
that outlasts drives and their changing states, preserving a sense of continuity in the 
variations of psychophysical conditions.

Furthermore, Scheler discovers fully developed categories of thing and substance in man 
due to the presence of the spirit in him, which an animal lacks. According to Scheler, 
animals lack the ability to coordinate visual and kinaesthetic space, or the objects 
revealed in each. In fact, he believes that all animals, whether highly developed or not, 
lack a centre that connects all of the psychological functions of seeing, hearing, smelling, 
and grasping, as well as the various things coordinated with them, into a unity that belongs 
to the same concrete object. Animals, on the other hand, lack the unifying principles of 
time and space, whereas man unifies his space and time through the power of the spirit. 
This unifying principle in him enables him to have a unified intuition of space in tactile, 
visual, auditory, and spatial dimensions. In terms of this unifying principle, man can 
substitute his own heart emptiness for the "infinite emptiness" of space and time (Scheler, 
1962. p.45). As a result, he can recall the past, the present, and the future and project them 
into the present.

Insofar as man is a bearer of spirit, Scheler claims that he can only participate in the acts of 
the super-individual spirit through some kind of identification. Scheler, on the other hand, 
proposed such a spirit on the basis of the essential bond between fact and idea, implying 
that there is a self-realizing order of ideas independent of human consciousness that could 
be attributed to the ultimate Ground of Being as one of its attributes. For him, man 
participates in such an order in three ways: in an order of essences, where the spirit is 
intellect; in an objective order of values, where the spirit expresses itself in love; and in a 
teleological order of the world, where the spirit expresses itself in action (Scheler, 1962. 

OSUJI A Philo-anthropological Differentiation Of Man ...      



150

p.48). 
To emphasise the peculiarity of "spirit," Scheler considers "ideation" to be a specifically 
spiritual act (Scheler, 1962. p.48). Ideation, according to Scheler, is independent of the 
number of observations and inductive inferences made. He believes it is a completely 
different act from all practical intelligence. Scheler also claims that it (the act of ideation) 
is the act that truly defines the human spirit. To view the essence, this act is a turning away 
from reality, contingent "being so now and here." For Scheler, Buddha's conversion is a 
perfect example of an act of ideation. In the case of Buddha, Scheler believes he said 
emphatically "no" to reality. Buddha knew this, according to Scheler, when he said it is 
wonderful to look at the things of this world and tremble at them, and when he developed 
his technique of de-actualizing the world and self (Scheler, 1962. p.52). Scheler speaks of 
the "ascetic" act of "de realisation," and claims that if existence is "resistance," it can only 
consist in the suspension, in the removal of that life-drive, in relation to which the world 
above all appears "as resistance," and which is also the condition of all sense-perception 
of the accidental here-now-then. However, in his opinion, this act can only be performed 
by that being known as "spirit," because only spirit in its pure "will" form can affect the 
derealisation of the "feeling-drive-centre," which Scheler regards as the mode of access to 
the "being real" of the real. Thus, man is revealed to be the living being capable of being 
"ascetic" in its approach to life (Scheler, 1962. p.54). As a result, he is able to suppress his 
own vital drives and deny them the sustenance of perceptual images and representations. 
When comparing ascetic man, who is a spirit bearer, to an animal, Scheler observes that 
an animal always says yes to reality, even when it avoids and flees it. Man, on the other 
hand, is the being who says no to reality; thus, he is the epitome of a protestant.

Evaluation
According to the above explanation of Max Scheler's concept of man, the hallmark of his 
philosophy of man is an attempt to stem the rising tide of evolutionary naturalism, and 
scientific philosophy in general. His philosophical anthropology, as a prominent figure 
among anti-naturalists, was intended to provide an alternative and acceptable definition 
of man to the special sciences' theory of man. Scheler, the most ardent opponent of the 
evolutionary theory of man in biology and other sciences that studied man in parts rather 
than whole, declares that "the increasing multiplicity of the special sciences that deal with 
man, valuable as they are, tend to hide his true nature more than they reveal it" (Scheler 
pg.6). This, however, demonstrates the nature of man at the time Scheler was 
philosophising. Thus, special sciences such as biology, psychology, physiology, and 
medicine, to name a few, provided partial definitions of man's nature. As a 
phenomenologist, I have no doubt that Scheler's man is to be addressed from his essence 
rather than the "debased" conception of naturalists or evolutionists who placed man on the 
same level as the animal with no essential difference. According to Scheler, even though 
man shares some characteristics with other beings in the universe, he is not limited to 
those characteristics such as vital impulse, instinct, associative memory, and intelligence, 
and thus he has an ontological status that distinguishes him from other beings in the 
universe (Scheler, pg.35).

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



When considering the evolution of man from his biological psychological nature, it is 
clear that the great advancement of science revealed numerous different aspects of man: 
biological, psychological, and so on. In reality, this assumption had only deepened the 
study of single sections of a whole, as previously mentioned, the analysis of determined 
"slices" of man's complex reality. As a result, it was felt necessary to consider a human 
being as a whole, synthesising, harmonising, and integrating the findings of scientific 
research in order to unite all the various aspects and obtain a new image of man. The 
distinctiveness of philosophical anthropology stems from this assumption: the need to 
investigate the inner and profound aspects of man. Max Scheler investigates the essence 
and essential constitution of man, as well as his psychic and spiritual natures, in order to 
arrive at this conclusion. Thus, Scheler's philosophical anthropology arose, on the one 
hand, from the need to consider the human being as a whole, as a unit of meaning, and, on 
the other hand, from finding itself at the crossroads between philosophy, natural science, 
and the science of man, it re-elaborated a theory that would help the human being to better 
understand himself and identify the distinguishing characteristics of his existence.

To better understand man, Scheler never shies away from asking what man is, what his 
nature is, and where he fits in the world. Scheler, on the other hand, investigates this 
through a rigorous and thorough comparison of man and animal. As a result, Scheler 
developed a new theory about the human being. As a result, Scheler established a new 
concept of man, as well as a new science of man that was beneficial to humanity.

Regarding man's bio-psychic nature, he agrees that it is the nature that man shares with 
other beings in the universe. This, however, implies that Scheler accepts the naturalists' 
definition of man, even though he believes that man transcends the nature posited by the 
naturalists. Indeed, it is clear that Scheler's man emerges from the naturalists' perspective. 
That is, it begins with impulse and progresses to the spiritual. In this regard, the 
naturalists' view of man serves as a foundation for Scheler's conception of man. 
Nonetheless, Scheler did not confine man to the realm of naturalists. As a result, he goes 
on to say that man is a spiritual being who, by virtue of the spirit within him, transcends 
even life itself. Man, according to Scheler, transcends not only himself but also his 
environment and can project it into world openness. However, man's transcendent act 
becomes his essential nature.

After emphasising the spiritual nature that makes Scheler's man a spiritual being, one can 
assert that man is a spirit in matter, with the spirit manifesting itself in the body. As a 
result, man is both spirit and body. As a psychic being with other beings in the universe, 
man is subject to all the laws of matter, implying his reliance on impulse, instinct, 
associative memory, and intelligence. As a result, man is still a natural animal operating in 
space and time. As a spirit, man exists above space and time, fully present to himself and 
capable of assimilating the rest of the cosmos and assimilating it with himself. However, 
because man has spirit, he is the master of the universe because he is no longer limited to 
natural things. He projects himself, lives an infinite life, and transforms his surroundings 
into whatever he desires.

151

OSUJI A Philo-anthropological Differentiation Of Man ...      



Conclusion:
In conclusion, Scheler's philosophy of man is one that encourages self-actualization and 
self-realization. It enables man to transition from being a slave to his environment, self, 
and life to becoming master of the same. Clearly, no one in our world today doubts that 
man, above all other beings in the universe, has conquered and transformed nature, his 
environment, and the world at large. Man has constructed bridges, aeroplanes, and 
houses, among other things. In fact, man, unlike other beings in the universe, has 
objectified his environment and is constantly self-conscious of what is going on around 
him. In fact, man has accomplished a great deal in this universe because of the "spirit" he 
possesses.

Finally, according to Scheler's view of man, man has conquered his environment, nature, 
and world, but man, as we can see today, remains a problem to himself. As a result, he has 
not conquered himself.

References 

Aquinas, T. (1939). Summa Theologica. ed. Joseph Pecci Oblata. Paris: Bibilolae 
Editoris, 

Aristotle. (1941). The Basic works of Aristotle. ed. Richard Mekecon, New York: 
Random House. (1975). Metaphysics. Trans. by Hugh Tredennick. London: 
Harvard University Press. 

Augustine. (1958). The City of God. Introduction by Etienne Gilson. Trans. by Gerald 
Walsh et al. Garden City N.Y: Image Books, 

Baldwin, J. M. (1960). Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology II, Glouces Mass: Peter 
Smith. 

Brugger. (1966). Kenneth. Philosophical Dictionary. New York City: Dorms Associates, 
Inc. 

Buber, M. (1968). The Knowledge of Man. ed. by Maurice Friedman. New York: 
Bronxville. 

(1955). Between man and Man. Trans. by Ronald Gregor Smith. Boston: Beacon Press. 
Cassirer, E. (1944). An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human 

Culture.London: Yale University Press. 
Darwin, C. (1968). The Origin of Species. ed by J. W. Burrow, England: Penguin Books. 
Descartes, R. (1993). Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. By Donald Cress 

Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Donceel, J.F. (1965). Philosophical Anthropology. USA: Sheed and Ward Inc.
Edwards, P. (1967). The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 7&8. N.Y: Macmillan Publishing 

Co, Inc.
Frings, M. (1965). A Concise Introduction into the World of a Great Thinker. Pittsburgh, 

Pa: Duquesne University Press. 
Gasset, Jose Ortega Y. (1957). Man and the People. Trans.by Willard R.Trask. New York: 

W.W. Norton and Company Inc.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1953). Reason in History. Trans. by Robert S. Hartman. New York: 

152

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



Macmillan Publishing Company. 
Iroegbu, P. (1995). Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy. Owerri: International 

University Press Ltd.
Mondin, B. (1985). Philosophical Anthropology. Rome: Urbaniana University Press. 
Nietzsche, F. (1967). The Will to Power. Trans. by Walter Kaufman and R.J. Hollingdale. 

New York: Vintage Books. 
Nota, J. H. (1983). Max Scheler: The Man and His Work. Chicago: Franciscan Herald 

Press.
Plato. (1967). The collected Dialogues of Plato. ed. by Edith Hamilton and Huntington 

Cairns. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 
Reese, W. L. (1980). Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. New Jersey: Humanities 

Press Inc.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. (1956). Being and Nothingness. Trans. by Hazel E. Barnes. New 

York: Washington Square Press.
Scheler, M. (1962). Man's Place in Nature. Trans. by Hans Meyerhoffs, New York: The 

Noonday Press.
……….(1973). Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values. Trans. by 

Manfred S. Frings and Roger L. Funk, Evanston USA: Northwestern 
University Press. 

Stumpf, S. E. (1980). Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy. USA: The McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc. 

OSUJI A Philo-anthropological Differentiation Of Man ...      

153


