Philosophy of the Human Person

Great condition!

I learned the real nature philosophy

I can tell you from personal experience that Father Reichmann, SJ (SJ stands for Society of Jesus. Reichmann was a Jesuit priest) was a total dingbat. He had some interesting things to say, but most of his course was used to prove the confirmation bias of his religious worldview. This book was our manual. Father Reichmann would downgrade and fail students who didn't agree with him, and was something of a joke among all other departments at the university.I honestly don't understand why anyone would willingly choose this philosophy book among all others, unless they were forced to do so.

This is an excellent introductory text into the subject matter of the human person. In its epistemological aspect, it is unquestionably loyal to an Aristotelian/Thomistic moderate realism. It goes through the aspect of human questioning and the problem of human knowledge. Here, in a tour de force, Reichmann introduces the reader to the entire structure of human knowledge beginning from the external world which impresses itself upon the human senses into his internal senses and then into intellectual concepts through the process of intellection. Reichmann also addresses the phenomenon of language and its relation to knowledge as well as to human nature. From knowledge, Reichmann then introduces the reader to the notion of action and willing and choosing, adopting, again an Aristotelian/Thomistic moderate determinism in his presentation of freedom, of willing, and of choosing. His handling of how it is that, though our will seeks the universal good infallibly, the will yet remains free in choosing particular goods is masterful. From knowing and willing, Reichmann then goes into other aspects of our human nature, including emotions and feelings and habits (which he defines as an "acquired operational structure") and only briefly touches the virtues and ethics. He passes from then to issues relating to the human person and the specific meaning which that has. He wraps his treatment up with questions as to the meaning of life, the meaning of death, and the beginnings of life individually and as a species. Though Reichmann is loyal to an Aristotelian/Thomistic viewpoint, he does not use any turgid scholastic phraseology. On the contrary, he uses modern concepts and language to express a traditional philosophy. This may be the single best text to introduce students or beginners to the greater aspects of being and good. Highly recommended.

James Reichmann is a Jesuit in the pre-Vatican II sense. At the time of the review, as well as when he wrote the book, he teaches philosophy at Seattle University (which is, of course, a Jesuit school).He is set in his beliefs, and it shows in the text. The text begins with a high-speed rundown of some of the big names in philosophy, briefly describing some of their work (spanning about 33 pages in all, out of roughly 270 pages). The rest of the book focuses on Reichmann's own philosophy with little attention paid to possible criticisms.The text is decidedly Christian in nature: Reichmann describes humans as creatures which are priviledged above all other animals, which he argues do not have the ability to learn, think, or communicate in any meaningful sense.I think this book, and it's attitude in general, can be summed up with the following passages; I've included some commentary with some of the passages, so as to account for the rating I've given:"The sobering conclusion emerging from the immense array of data gathered through the space explorations and the recent probes by astronomers into outer space is that life is, as far as we know, a unique earthly phenomenon." (246) [This is not a sound conclusion, nor an accurate representation of the facts: we've only explored the area of space local to earth. As such, we cannot arrive at any "sobering conclusion" -- we must remain ambivolent to the possibility of life on other planets.]"Lastly, the inadequacy of the evolutionary theory to account for the origin of the human was considered. A brief account of the developments in the area of microbiology and anthropology was presented, and reasons why evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origin of the human were also given." (270) [He did, indeed, spend a lot of time arguing against evolution. You may or may not believe in evolution, but hopefully you do believe that, when arguing against it, we should at least describe the theory accurately and attack it in its most defensive form. Sadly, I think his description of the theory is not accurate to begin with, which undermines the credibility of his argument. Straw man!]"Recent developments in the areas of microbiology and anthropology are most consonant with a theistic view which assigns the origin and development of living things to a divine, creative act whereby nonliving matter is first organized and oriented toward a higher synthesis of a dynamically functional and creative unity." (272) [Even if you accept his arguments against evolution, he does not show how divine creation comes to the rescue. Again, you may believe in creation, and that's fine, but for the sake of a textbook we should be a bit more rigorous: if we want to argue in favor of creation, we should explain why!]If you hold these views, you will find in this book a voice which agrees with you and does not offer an alternative perspective; if you disagree with these views, you will probably feel as though he is misrepresenting the evidence and basing his arguments on straw men. While this is good doctrine, I cannot say that it is in line with Jesuit standards of rigor, much less the philosophical practice of carefully constructing one's argument. For this reason, I give the book 1 star.

This guy is far out. His attempt to find purely philosophical solutions to problems in the human situation reminds me of the guy in the armchair who talked about building a flying saucer. Although the abstract concepts left him where he was, he was possessed by the delusion that he was trailing Halley's comet. Reichmann, too, seems preoccupied such that, in addressing epistemological questions he thinks he's resolved some problem in concrete reality. You cannot reach ecumenical celebration of truth without compromising it because mankind is beset with sin. Only Jesus Christ will change the hearts of men, not some philosophical argument distilled from philosophical concoctions.