Homo quaerens se ipsum


Man’s history is the history of a quest and a search (Homo quaerens). We can also add that this is the search of man looking for himself (Homo quaerens se ipsum). Man continually searches and asks about himself and others. Man does this at all stages of civilisation development as if he felt the stigmata of the Plato’s myth referred to as “the allegory of the cave”[1]. In a sense, John Paul II marked this in his encyclical Fides et ratio: «In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”».

Man looks for himself with the use of the word and the image. Man looks for himself, communicates with himself, with other people and with God (Logos, the Absolute, the Transcendence). Despite numerous cognitive problems, man gains his own image, examines and apprises himself: ad intra and ad extra. Man feels that the real image of himself ought to provide inspiration to create an ideal image of himself so as to find humanity in its fullness. Thus, man realises himself as an individual and a part of the community, in a specified system of moral values and interpersonal relations. Man gains “something more”. Man gains what used to be and is still called the person’s world, or even, the mystery of the person. The term “person” (from the Greek, prosopon; Latin, persona) in Old Greece initially signified the face mask of an actor which was put on when on stage. The mask symbolised the sense of perfection, deity and of the idea man was striving for. The mask also symbolised a kind of mystery man was supposed to discover. The history of philosophical ideas abounds with numerous definitions of a person, ranging from the classical of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (480-524)—persona est naturae rationalis individua substantia[2]--to as far as the views of Karol Wojtyła (1920-2005) and Czesław Stanisław Bartnik (1929-). According to these theories, in the end, the whole reality is marked with the overwhelming symbol of a person. Thus the person, the man’s person and God’s Person—a perfect unity of Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit—is and must be the interpretation of the civilisation and the key to the reality[3]. We can thus say that man looks for himself as a person as if he sensed that he originates from the person, and the person is man’s ultimate destination. Classic ontology of being first and foremost focused on the cosmos, nature, things, and finally, about man as a micro-cosmos (Tales). The cosmos provided a sense of explanation for man. Personalistic universalism represented by Czesław Bartnik presents a reversed gradation of beings: God first, followed by the human person, and the world of things. The kind of in-personal world comes last. Whole reality can only be understood in relation to man as a person and finally to a personal God. Bartnik—a present day representative of Personalism from Poland—introduces a prosopopeia being category where a person is the supreme and absolute category of being in a general sense. The person is the principle and the argument, the objective and the sense of all reality. All existence has its relationship and reference to the person. All reality has the towards-person structure[4].

Man looks for this relationship, this reference to the person in himself, in relationship with others, in the sphere of everyday life. This pursuit would take place and continues to take place in the sphere of human thought; man expresses (communicates) the thought through word and image. The latter, in turn, induces specific thoughts in the other man. The thought gives rise to the word; the word gives rise to the thought. What was first in man then? Who was the first author (sender) of the first thought, or in other words, who was the first word (logos) which gave rise to the thought in the man? Is this man looking for the person’s world in himself and communicates with himself? Is man the sender and the receiver? Or is there somebody else as the sender and man as the receiver in the communication which is referred to as interpersonal? These questions suggest that the source of the thought is in man, some kind of Logos which had existed before man appeared. There is Logos that started acting towards man and thus created him[5]. Logos is in a sense an elementary man’s experience[6]. You cannot possibly escape Saint John’s Gospel’s beginning, “In the beginning there was the Word”. Jan Parandowski would write that: “The word is a great mystery. All religions have perceived the word as God’s gift that came with the first day of man’s life”[7]. This kind of thinking leads to the conclusion that man’s history is embedded between the Word which has existed ever since the beginning of time and is the source of all kinds of thinking about man, and the world of the person man looks for and strives for.

The person’s world is also the interpretation of man-to-man relations. We can say that the person is a relation (relatio subsistens). The person is a unity[8]. The person is the communication. Man, who communicates with others (Homo communicans) looks for the person in himself and in others, looks for what builds this personal world here and now in his thinking, looking, communication or simply in acting (operari). This acting is the consequence of who we are (esse) and at the same time, esse is a consequence of my acting. I become a person in acting. More precisely, man, through morally good deeds, becomes the person; through a deed that is morally bad, man in a sense does not become the person[9]. The way leading to this kind of thinking required time in the past; it needs a lot of time now too. The revolution was brought about by Descartes (1596-1650), the French philosopher and mathematician. Descartes indicated man as the subject. Thus, he related to the old-Greek definition of man as a “thinking being”; however he accepted only “rationality” (rationalitas), and the person as “the thinking I” – Ego cogitans. Thus, Descartes detached the person from the body, matter, and nature, which leads to the presentation of the person as an idea, thought, notion, value, and dignity. Finally, this has consolidated modern philosophy’s perception of man as the “soul” and the “spirit”--a pure subject. However, there is a whole sphere of investigation on what man thinks, what shapes man’s thought, and how the thought is expressed in the communication process when communicating with others. I think, therefore I am. We may pose the question: Am I what I think and am I what I am because of what I think? The first chapter of this publication will make an attempt to find an answer to this question: I think, therefore I am.

With the Ancient Sumers, a superior kind of thought was triggered with the question about the beginnings that were strictly associated with deities. According to the Greeks, the thought was born out of “admiration” for the world or out of “astonishment” with beauty. According to the early Christians, it was born in man who was under the impression of “God’s great works in the world”. In Saint Augustine’s opinion (354-430), philosophy started the moment man’s thought was discovered. Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) believed it was derived from the reflection regarding man’s otherness from another world’s substances. Descartes saw the origin of philosophy in man’s internal consciousness (cogito). George Hegel (1770-1831) taught it was brought by history as a sequence of moments of spirit. Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) found the origins of thought in live-matter complexification and organisation. Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) reconstruction of human pre-history indicated the evolution starting from Australopithecinae equipped with a lithe brain through Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus to as far as Homo sapiens as the reason of the thought coming into being[10]. Today the phenomenon of human person appears more and more clearly–from the content-based point of view as the first and unusual reality, from a methodological point of view as the mindset[11].

The history of man who looks for himself is much more than Homo sapiens’ history; this is also the history of Homo videns. The image has always accompanied man in the process of examining and learning about himself and the world, in transferring his own “I” to others and thus, to social relations establishment. Man has always expressed himself in relationship with others through non-verbal communication composed of a series of images which statistically dominate over verbal communication. Domination of non-verbal communication over verbal communication does not deprive the latter of its primacy. This order, thrown out of balance, was questioned alongside the development of communication technologies. It was generally believed to be a breakthrough: the civilisation of the word perceived as ineffective and useless was suppressed with the civilisation of the image. The latest period in history has indicated that the book has not lost to the film, computer or mobile phone. The radio (as the logospheric medium) did not lose to television (the iconospheric medium). The word did not confine the image. Quite the opposite. It is hard to imagine network-based interactive communication without the written word (text message) or the spoken word (social network). Man has an amazing connection with the word in the earthly life dimension as well as in the dimension of sacrum. The danger that man (owing to his laziness for instance) will give up his predispositions as Homo sapiens still exists. The unprecedented process of social life visualisation and marginalisation of the word bears consequences. This is discussed in the second chapter of this book, I See, Therefore I Am. Giovanni Sartori’s theory presented in the popular book, Homo videns: Teledirected Society,[12] is the starting point for the Homo videns analysis. It is a prophecy of man’s loss of reason and cognitive abilities, his ignorance, and his own “I” deconstruction under the influence of the image. In his reflection, Sartori goes as far as the brave hypothesis that holds that the inclination to watch brings man closer to his original tribal nature, to the representatives of the species man originates from. Images (simple drawings on caves’ walls, pictorials) used to be the world cognition and communication tool in the life of countless tribes; it was not the word or abstract ideas thinking. This prophecy will not find a fulfilment—this can be gathered owing to the presence of the word in media sphere. Nonetheless, it can weaken man in his development and self-realisation, especially when considering the statistics that hold that children eight to eighteen in the USA spend as much as six and half hours in front of the television (half of the sample relates that there are no rules regarding frequency of television viewing). What comes as a more interesting fact is that the average viewing time among children aged six months to six years amounts to ninety minutes a day. A similar situation can be observed in European countries[13]. How can a proper place of the image be found in the present-day Screenagers’ life then?

Both the word and the image express man’s life, constitute man. The thought is the source of the word and the image in man. The same word and the same image give rise to the thought in the other man. The rivalry between them indicates a kind of instability. Thus, it is better to look for some other constant that would determine who is the man and what would be with the thought, the word, and the image.

This search for the answer compels us to return to the phenomenon of the human person and what lays the basis for knowledge about man. This is the experience of man, i.e. insight into man. This is the experience of the world and the experience of oneself in the world gained through a contract with the world. The experience is the insight which comes before the outlook upon the world and man; it goes before the worldview. It is not the thought, but the experience that distinguishes man from all animals and objects. Man appears to be exceptional, someone who exceeds the world, who is exceptional owing to the fact that man is the person.

Experience means that I am. This is the starting point for Karol Wojtyła’s anthropological reflection. Wojtyła—a Thomist, Phenomenologist, a Spiritual Inheritor of Saint John of the Cross (1542-1591), an analyst of man’s internal world, the creator of one of the most interesting and original concepts of the world. The terms “Thomist” and “Phenomenologist” indicate the two great sources Wojtyła reaches to. On the one hand, he finds his place in the tradition of Thomistic realism inspired by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964), Étienne Gilsona (1884-1978), and in Poland, by Stefan Świeżawski (1907-2004) and Father Mieczysław Albert Krąpiec (1921-2008). On the other hand, he critically assimilates the phenomenological thought presented in Max Scheler’s (1874-1928) texts. In Saint John of the Cross’ mysticism, Karol Wojtyła found “the way to the most supreme form of being’s fortitude, i.e., to this kind of fortitude which cannot be sparked on one’s own, which is not derived from a participation in a kind of unity (community, institution); it rather stems from a kind of all-encompassing reality—with God”[14]. In Saint John of the Cross’ texts, Wojtyła tries to find an answer to the two mutually related questions. The first of these questions is: Who is man? This is an anthropological question. The other questions are ethical and existential in nature: Who can man become? Who should man become? The answer to these questions is the basis of understanding the notion of “interpersonal communication”.

Tadeusz Styczeń (1931-2010), a philosopher and Karol Wojtyła’s disciple, writes about “insight” anthropology. At its starting point, it is epistemologically independent and methodologically autonomous of any philosophical system. This means that all people can meet on the plane of man’s experience, regardless of philosophical ideas or religions[15]. This meeting is dialogue, the interpersonal communication in its character. Then an exchange of insights takes place. This insight is a communication in its character. This is called interpersonal communication. Communication turns out to be people’s first common experience, and as such, the experience sets the basis for knowledge on man, about oneself and about the other man. This line of thinking made it possible to give the title to the third part of the book: I Communicate, Therefore I Am. This chapter presents the basic provisions of Wojtyła’s anthropology, the author uses them to define interpersonal communication, not man to man communication but communication between persons. The fact that I communicate with myself and others can continually make me Somebody greater. Communication as act, seen from the “man acts” perspective and “something-happens-in-man”, is the examination of man as the person. Thus, each man in his communication and cognition is accompanied with self-awareness which is the obligation to control one’s insights and views created in communication with others[16]. This way each “man is a kind of eye-witness of himself, of his humanity and himself as the person”[17]. The action, as Wojtyła writes, is a special moment of insight into the person in the experience of man’s acting. In consequence, communication as the examination of man, reveals man to himself and others. Our experience and also our intellectual apprehension of the person in and through his action are derived in particular from the fact that actions have a moral value; they are morally good or morally bad. Morality constitutes their intrinsic feature[18]. It is worth reiterating that through actions with a moral value, man realises himself as the person; through acts morally evil, man in a sense does not realise himself as the person. In the communication process, the moral value of an act and thus, man’s self-realisation as the person, applies to the sender and the receiver. What is more, in the era of the new media (the computer and the Internet-enabled mobile phone) it is worth stressing the moral value of the communication act. The communication tool does not have a moral value. These values are assigned by the users[19]. “Great good and great evil come from the use people make of the media of social communication. (…) For even though acts of communicating often do have unintended consequences, nevertheless people choose whether to use the media for good or evil ends in a good or evil way. (…) But despite their immense power, the means of communication are, and will remain, only media—that is to say, instruments or tools, available for both good and evil uses. The choice is ours. The media do not call for a new ethic; they call for the application of established principles to new circumstances”[20]. Thus, the generally held and copied saying that present-day communication technologies and mass media change man and man’s world without his consent, is not necessarily right. The truth is presented in Marshall McLuhan’s (1911-1980) technological determinism theory. This Canadian media specialist assumed that technological inventions invariably lead to cultural change: we shape our tools and the tools in turn shape us[21]. Man is a creator of tools and in turn they change man and man’s relationships with others. This does not mean however, that man no longer makes decisions about himself. Man communicates, either face to face or with the use of communication technologies and thus, feels that he exists. Does man become the person? Does man become Somebody, not only in ontic sense, but first and foremost in the ethical sense? This depends on man and the dynamic of the human person; this is described in Chapter 3 of this publication. Personal self-determination is the basis of this dynamic; it is responsible for the personalistic or personal value of an act. “Such a value differs from all moral values, which belong to the nature of the performer action and issue from their reference to a norm. The personalistic value, on the other hand, inheres in the performance itself of the action by the person, in the very fact that man acts in a manner appropriate to him”[22]. The personalistic value of the personal act is ahead of ethical values and conditions the latter. Thus, adjudication about moral values, good or evil done by man, have the source in self-determination—in the fact man has committed the act and has fulfilled himself. This self-fulfilment is strictly associated with moral quality so much as “moral evil” is the contradiction of self-fulfilment—it is a non-fulfillment of the self in acting[23].

This internal, immanent personal self-determination structure Homo agens guarantees a stabilisation in the word-image relationships and at the same time, out of Homo communicans;it makes Persona communicans. The third chapter also presents the personalistic norm put forward by Wojtyła’s anthropology. This is the principle of the person’s affirmation for the sake of the person. Tadeusz Styczeń explains it this way: «An insight into the structure of one’s own “I” simply becomes the discovery of the “I” structure as “how”, i.e. co-discovery of any other’s “I” structure»[24]. Man, as the subject in his discovery of himself, discovers in himself the truth about any other man, simply discovers any other man in himself. Thus, man falls into the “ambush” of the truth about any other man. The normative power of this truth obliges man to assume a specific attitude: from now on man is unable to negate or disregard without disregarding the truth about himself, i.e. without disrespect towards himself. The same is owed to the other person. Thus, what is not allowed in relation to one’s own “I” is also not allowed—for the same reason—in relation to any other “I”. Wojtyła presents it this way: «I accept their “I”, that is, I affirm the person and this way in a sense “I opt for them in myself”, that is in my own “I” because I do not have the access to the other man as “I”, only in my own “I”»[25]. What are thus the conclusions for Homo communicans? The basic conclusion: to be oneself is to be in solidarity with the other. We all, as well as each and everyone of us, is “doomed” for this radical solidarity through our discovery of this “ambush of the truth”. To be oneself means to choose solidarity with others, to extend oneself towards the other person. This thesis and this demand grow out of the same experience.

The terms used in our reflection are based on this personalistic norm: personal or interpersonal communication and Persona communicans. Personalistic norm is the foundation of reflection in the last paragraph: I Participate, Therefore I Am. This publication would be incomplete if the fact that man thinks and expresses himself with the use of words and images, acts and communicates with others, were not taken into consideration. The person is a being in the direction of the other person. The person’s ontology is the interpersonal ontology: existence means coexistence[26]. This truth about man’s social nature is stressed throughout the whole publication. Because man’s presence in community may be realised through different forms, the fourth chapter presents the form which has grown out of Wojtyła’s anthropological thought. This is participation. Man’s social nature encompasses the three areas: identity, communication, and participation[27]. All three are based on a dynamic correlation between the person and the act. This correlation is a fundamental and basic reality for the whole diversity of actions of social, community, and man–to-man nature, as well as the basis for these acts which allow us to find relationship to the perfect community in the Personal God—Unio Personarum. Not only does man want to co-exist with others through communication acts, but also, man feels in himself a natural call, a natural vocation for man-God communication as the one with whom God wishes to communicate. Man needs to recognise this vocation in the always-changing reality of life. This is what Descartes did when looking for the basis of First Philosophy. Today’s reality is shaped by modern communication technologies and man’s sphere of life may be referred to as the media sphere. The subjects the sphere is composed of, and the senders of media messages have two basic tools: the word and the image. Mass media, with the use of these tools, transmit (code) the thought and give rise to thoughts of the other man. We may risk saying that mass media have the same tools as God in His creative act and all through the salvation history: the word and the image. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (J 1,1). «Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness» (Gen 1, 26). Not only is the creation act described in the Old Testament—the herald of alliance between God and man[28]--but this is also the forecast of God and man and man-to-man communication. Finally, God confirmed this alliance and this communication through what happened in Bethlehem. God spoke through His Son, Jesus Christ—the Embodied Word. Christ teaches with the use of the word and the image (parables). Thus, the question arises: what role do people of mass media see for themselves.A replacement of the Absolute or a guiding post to the Absolute? The question remains open. Answers are different each time they are offered by media publications.

We need to remember that the media sphere is much more than senders and media creators, manufacturers of communication technologies, and media corporations. The media sphere are also include the recipients: individuals, families, local communities. The media sphere is composed of those who are first and foremost engaged in intrapersonal and interpersonal communication. This—a direct and interactive interpersonal communication—is and ought to be the source of all kinds of thinking and scientific examinations of media communication. The mother’s first words to a child and the child’s first words to a mother; first images perceived by the child; the dialogue which constitutes a marriage and makes a family stronger; the ancient poleis, decisive for democracy and social life, are the foundation of the present-day media sphere, today’s mediapolis creation. The interactive interpersonal communication builds a true media sphere where man is the measure (moral appraisal criterion) of all activities [29]. God is the first Absolute. Man is the second absolute; the only creation God wanted for Himself[30]. This is how Wojtyła explains it: “To recognise man’s dignity means to regard man much higher than anything that is man-created and present in the visible word. All man’s works and products crystallised in civilisations and cultures only make up the world of means man uses on his way to his right destination”[31]. Man does not live for technology, civilisation or even culture. Man is aided by them when trying to attain his objective, i.e. to be a full person.

The appendix: “Family in Mass Media World” is devoted to the media sphere structure. The article was published in 2007 and presents the author’s scientific interest built upon his previous works, MA dissertation: “Individual Anthropology according to Karol Wojtyła” (1992), and PhD dissertation on “Person and Moral.Person finds fulfillment in Moral”(2000). The two realities—the person and morality—have always been present in the sphere of life. Now they operate in the mass media-created sphere. The author looks for the person’s identity and the person’s mission in the present-day media sphere. The “Family in Mass Media World” article sets the beginning of this quest. It shows the way the author has gone along in his attempts to form mass media anthropology. The scientific research has been accompanied with practical experience of work in mass media. The author founded a local magazine “Przyjaciel” [The Friend] in Puławy (1992). He was also a journalist (1994-1996), and then editor-in-chief and director of Radio Plus in Lublin (2000-2005), the founder of the advertisement agency, “Media Plus” in Lublin (2003), as well as a collaborator of the local public mass media, Radio Lublin and Polish National Television in Lublin. The author also founded the local bulletin of the Holy Mary Our Lady of Victory in Lublin (2011-). The author’s scope of scientific research in the field of mass media anthropology as well as didactic potentials in the field of family studies and social work exercised at the Catholic University of Lublin since 2003, is presented in the bibliography attached. Not only is the author’s work the fruit of media experience, scientific research and didactic activity, it is also in line with the Church’s Magisterium. In 2008, Benedict XVI, in his message for the 42nd World Communications Day, “The Media: At the Crossroads between Self-Promotion and Service,Searching for the Truth in order to Share it with Others”, says that «The role that the means of social communication have acquired in society must now be considered an integral part of the “anthropological” question that is emerging as the key challenge of the third millennium» (no. 4).

The publication’s conclusion offers to present the whole communication study with the old-Greek term poieo. Poiema Communications is the interpersonal communication which leads to cognition and at the same time to the new world creation—the world which would allow man to find fulfilment as an individual and as a community. Poiema Communications guarantees man’s identity to be preserved in the present day media sphere and also indicates man’s mission. Owing to the Poiema Communications, I am as man and as the community. I simply am: I Communicate, Therefore I AM.


[1] See G. Reale, Historia filozofii starożytnej[The History ofAncient Philosophy], vol. II: Od początków do Sokratesa [From the Beginning to Socrates], RW KUL, Lublin 2000, pp. 347-354.

[2] A. M. Boethius, Liber de persona et duabus naturis contra Eutychen et Nestorium ad Ioannem diaconum Ecclesiae Romanae, PL 64, 1343 C.

[3] See Cz. S. Bartnik, Personalizm teologiczny Kard. K. Wojtyły [Theological Personalism by Karol Wojtyła], in: Cz. S. Bartnik, Szkice do systemu personalizmu [Sketches for Personalism], Lublin 2006, p. 122. See also Cz. S. Bartnik, Personalizm [Personalism], Lublin 2000, p. 71.

[4] See K. Góźdź, Personalizm systemowy ks. profesora Czesława Stanisława Bartnika [Personalism System by Karol Wojtyła], in: Cz. S. Bartnik, Teologia i świat osoby [Theology and Person World], Lublin 2008, p. 27.

[5] See C. Sepe, Persona e storia. Per una teologia della persona [Person and History. For a Theology of the Person], Milano 1990, p. 77.

[6] See A. Scola, Questioni di antropologia teologica, [IssuesofTheological Anthropology], Milano 1996, p. 144.

[7] J. Parandowski, Alchemia słowa [Alchemy Word], Warszawa 1950, p. 149.

[8] See R. B. Hays, La vision morale del Nuovo Testamento [TheMoralVisionof the New Testament], Milano 2000, p. 218-219.

[9] K. Wojtyła, The Acting Person, translated by A. Potocki, Analecta Husserliana. The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research, Volume X, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordecht, Boston, London 1979, p. 13.

[10] See C. Cela-Conde, The Hominid Evolutionary Journey: A Summary, in: R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, F. J. Ayala (ed.), Evolutionary and Molecular Biology. Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory, Città del Vaticano, 1998, pp. 63-70.

[11] Cz. S. Bartnik, Personalizm, p. 33.

[12] G. Sartori, Homo videns. Telewizja i postmyślenie [Homo videns. Television and Postmodern Thinking], Warszawa 1999.

[13] See V. C. Strasburger, B. J. Wilson, A. B. Jordan, Children, Adolescents and the Media, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles 2009, pp. 6-8.

[14] J. Galarowicz, Człowiek jest osobą. Podstawy antropologii filozoficznej Karola Wojtyły [The Man as a Person. The Basics of philosophical anthropology of Karol Wojtyła], Kraków 1994, p. 16; M. Pokrywka, Osoba, uczestnictwo, wspólnota [Person, participation, community], Lublin 2000, p. 22.

[15] See T. Styczeń, Być sobą to przekraczać siebie – O antropologii Karola Wojtyły [Be Yourself is Transcend Yourself. About Anthropology of Karol Wojtyła], in: K. Wojtyła, Osoba i czyn oraz inne studia antropologiczne [Man and Act. And other Anthropological Studies], TN KUL, Lublin 1994, p. 497.

[16] See J. R. Sachs, The Christian Vision of Humanity. Basic Christian Anthropology, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 1991, pp. 28-29.

[17] K. Wojtyła, Podmiotowość i „to, co nieredukowalne w człowieku” [Subjectivity and “what is irreducible in the man”], in: K. Wojtyła, Osoba i czyn oraz inne studia antropologiczne, pp. 440-441.

[18] K. Wojtyła, The Acting Person, pp. 10-11.

[19] See W. Chudy, Filozofia personalistyczna Jana Pawła II (Karola Wojtyły) [Personalistic Philosophy of John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła)], „Teologia Polityczna” [Political Theology], 3 (2005-2006), p. 235.

[20] The Papal Council for the Means of Mass Communication, Ethics in Media, (4 June 2000) no. 1 and no. 28. See W. Pisarek, Kodeksy etyki dziennikarskiej [Codes of Journalist’s Ethics], in: Z. Bauer, E. Chudziński [ed.], Dziennikarstwo i świat mediów [Journalism and Media World], Kraków 2000, pp. 423-434.

[21] Por. E. Griffin, Podstawy komunikacji społecznej [A First Look at Communication Theory], Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 2002, p. 344.

[22] K. Wojtyła, The Acting Person, p. 264.

[23] „[…] for the significance of moral values for the person is such that the true fulfillment of the person is accomplished by the positive moral virtuality of the action and not by the mere performance of the action itself. Morally evil virtualities of action, on the other hand, lead to non fulfillment even though the person is acting. When performing an action the person fulfills himself also from the ontological point of view. Thus we come to the conclusion that the deepest significance with respect to the real existence of morality can be grasped as man’s fulfilment, whereas his allegiance to evil means in fact nonfulfillment”, K. Wojtyła, The Acting Person, p. 153.

[24] T. Styczeń, Być sobą to przekraczać siebie, pp. 506-507.

[25] K. Wojtyła, Uczestnictwo czy alienacja [Participation or Alienation], in: K. Wojtyła, Osoba i czyn oraz inne studia antropologiczne, p. 454.

[26] See T. Goffi, G. Piana (ed.), Corso di morale [Course Moral], vol. III: Koinonia. Etica della vita sciale [Koinonia. Ethics of Social Life], Brescia 1991, p. 15.

[27] See A. Rigobello (ed.), Lessico della persona umana [The Human Person Lexicon], Rom 1986, pp. 184-188.

[28] See I. Sanna, L’uomo via fondamentale della chiesa. Trattato di antroplogia teologica [The Human Being fundamental way the Church. Theological Anthropology Treaty], Rom 1989, pp. 32-33.

[29] See M. Vidal, Manuale di etica teologia [Ethics Theology Handbook], vol. III: Morale sociale [Moral Social], Assisi 1997, p. 799.

[30] See S. Palumbieri, L’uomo, questa meraviglia. Antroplogica filosofica I. Trattato sulla costituzione antropologica [Man, This is wonderful. Anthropological Philosophical Anthropology I. Treaty on the Anthropological Establishment], Rom 1999, p. 75.

[31] K. Wojtyła, Człowiek jest osobą [The Man as a Person], in: K. Wojtyła, Osoba i czyn oraz inne studia antropologiczne, p. 418.

Autor: Jarosław Jęczeń
Ostatnia aktualizacja: 12.04.2014, godz. 00:17 - Jarosław Jęczeń