Many are the suicides of those whose dignity has been trampled on and were not able to recover. An apartment security guard who could not bear the insults and the ‘tyranny of the powerful’ was one of these reported, drawing public outrage. Even more shocking was the incident in which an elementary school teacher who could not bear the bullying of parents ended her own life. Such acts of ignoring others’ human rights continue.
Why are things not tolerated in the past being carried out so openly in a democratized modern society? To answer this, it may be helpful to examine the concept of ‘person’, which implicitly contains the basis of human dignity.
Kant’s categorical imperative in its second form is “You shall use humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end, never as a mere means.” Boethius recognized the unique status of individuals by highlighting the concept of the ‘individual substance’ of the person. This definition provided an opportunity to overcome the two extremes: identifying humans with the soul or emphasizing only the material aspect.
It is known that the concept of person was established as the basis for asserting universal ‘human dignity’ through the modern philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). He presented the second form of the categorical imperative: “You shall act in such a way that you always use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of another, as an end, and never as a mere means.” This commandment is never an exception, even for those with money or power, and it is something that all humans must follow, not just in exceptional cases.
However, it is not well known that a deeper reflection on personality than Kant, who based his thinking solely on universal human reason, developed within the tradition of medieval philosophy. The most influential definition of ‘persona’ (person) is that of the last Roman philosopher, Boethius (480-524).
He defined “personality as an individual substance with rational nature” (Persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia). Boethius first emphasized the rational nature of humans, which is distinguished from animals, following the Greek tradition that emphasized universal nature. However, he was also inspired by the biblical tradition that emphasized individuality, as in the expressions ‘God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob’ or ‘the one lost sheep’. Therefore, he did not identify personhood with a universal nature but recognized individuals' unique status by highlighting the concept of individual substance. This definition provided an opportunity to overcome the two extremes of simply identifying humans with the soul, like Plato, or emphasizing only the material aspects of individuals, like materialists.
However, with the beginning of Scholasticism, various criticisms were raised against Boethius' definition of personhood. In particular, the main issue was that this definition did not sufficiently express ‘relationship’.
However, St. Thomas Aquinas made Boethius’ definition fully usable by deepening its interpretation without replacing it with another one. He synthesized not only Boethius’ definition but also his criticism of it, thereby revealing more clearly the meaning contained in each element of ‘rational’, ‘nature’, ‘individual’, and ‘substance’, and connecting various positions. It seems that he achieved this result not only because of his philosophical genius but also because of his theological insight.
St. Thomas highlighted the uniqueness and irreplaceability of personality and sounded a loud alarm to those who tried to treat others as objects or means. Beyond this, he also paid attention to ‘relationship, which was not expressed in Boethius’ definition, and ‘self-transcendence, which was based on the analogical connection with God. This insight aligns well with Martin Buber's dialogical concept of personality (I and Thou), which has been highlighted in modern times. St. Thomas further emphasized that personality is ‘the most perfect thing in all nature’. In conclusion, he discovered the fundamental ‘dignity’ of the ‘complete whole’ encompassing all these characteristics.
Of course, this synthesis by St. Thomas can never completely reveal the mystical nature of personality. However, it is very rare in many modern and contemporary theories of personality to have such diverse elements closely connected to form a single system. This rich concept of personality is not simply theoretical but can be utilized in various fields. In particular, this concept will serve as a guideline for protecting human dignity wherever the dignity of the individual is threatened by all forms of totalitarianism, including the state and religion.
Nobody should or can purchase the ‘personality’ of those working with their money. Since we cannot solve everything alone, we can purchase goods and services provided by others with our money.
However, no matter how much wealth a rich person has, he can never buy the ‘personality of others’ who serve him. The ‘personality’ created as the ‘image of God’ uniquely and irreplaceably possesses a dignity that nothing should damage. This is why we should not personally insult our neighbors by putting our positions or wealth first. The professor hopes that through changes such as the Workplace Bullying Prevention Act and the Teacher Rights Protection Committee, society will awaken, rediscover, and respect the personality of those who help us.
