Publication Transcendental Love Journal


Transcendence and Love for a New Global Society









Cuadernos de Pensamiento Espanol




Ma IDOYA ZORROZA (Universidad de Navarra), directora DAVID

GONZALEZ GINOCCHIO (Universidad International de La Rioja), sub-director CECILIA SABIDO (Universidad Panamericana, Mexico), sub-directora FRANCISCO GUELL (Universidad de Navarra), secretario


JOSE BARRIENTOS (Universidad de Salamanca)

HARALD E. BRAUN (University of Liverpool, UK)

GENARA CASTILLO (Universidad de Piura, Peru)

JORGE E. GRACIA (State University of New York, Buffalo)

DANIEL HEIDER (University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice)

SIMONA LANGELLA (Universidad de Genova)

MANUEL LAZARO PULIDO (Universidade Catolica de Portugal)

SANTIAGO ORREGO (Universidad Catolica de Chile)

NELSON ORRINGER (University of Connecticut)

RAFAEL RAMON GUERRERO (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)

WALTER REDMOND (Huston-Tillotson College, Austin-Texas)

ARMANDO SAVIGNANO (Universidad de Bari)

GALINA VDOVINA (Academia Rusa de Humanidades)

ISBN: 978-84-8081-526-0

Deposito Legal: NA 0252-2017


N° 64: Alberto I. Vargas / Gonzalo Alonso-Bastarreche / Daan Van Schalkwijk (eds.), Transcendence and Love for a New Global Society 2017

© Alberto I. Vargas / Daan Van Schalkwijk / Gonzalo Alonso-Bastarreche


31080 Pamplona. Tfn.: 948 42 56 00. Fax: 948 42 56 36

ULZAMA DIGITAL, S. L., Pol. Ind. Areta. Huarte

calle A-33. 31620 Huarte (Navarra)


Table of Contents

Presentation. The Transcendental Flourishment of Human Love: Facing Modern Complexity, Alberto I. Vargas / Gonzalo Alonso-Bastarreche / Daan Van Schalkwijk



Love, Self-fulfillment, and a Passion for Investing, Adrian J. Reimers


Person as co-existence. An Approach to Leonardo
Polo’s Transcendental Anthropology, Ana Isabel Moscoso


Life and Cognition. A Psychological Approach from the Philosophy of Leonardo Polo, Beatriz Byrne


Functionalization. A New Way of Looking at the Relationship between Structure and Function in the Brain, Jose Victor Oron Semper / Gonzalo Alonso-Bastarreche


Notes on Leonardo Polo’s Rectification of the Foundations of Legal Modernity: Toward a Theology of Jurisprudence or Personal Law, Daniel H. Castaneda y G


Decodification, Common Good, and Responsible Societies Beyond the Elinor Ostrom’s Theory of Governing the Commons, Grzegorz Jan Blicharz


Domestic Work: The First Profession?, Rafael Hurtado


Business in search of innovation and business venture, Silvia Carolina Martino


Inspiring the “Sense of Vocation” in Future Business Leaders through Character Education, Claudio Andres Rivera


A Creative Insight into the Connection of St. John Paul Il’s and Leonardo Polo’s Philosophical Anthropology Applied to the Field of Arts Education, Agata Muszynska



Mystical experience and human rights?, Aleksandra Mirkowicz


Equal Natural Dignity of Disable Person in Thought of St. John Paul II, Bawer Aondo


The Harmonized Person: A Postmodern Reconciliation of Identity as an Anthropological Conflict, Issa Cristina Hernandez Herrera




Claudio Andres Rivera1


For more than 100 years, business leaders have been traditionally educated in business schools, which generally have influenced decisively the what, how, and why of their profession. The latest financial crises and corporate scandals, particularly the 2008 crisis, have promoted a revision of the role, approach, and curricula of business school programs. Major initiatives have been launched all across the globe, for example, the United Nation PRME program. They have encouraged the incorporation of more ethical values in the management and teaching activities of business schools.

However, most of these initiatives have been limited simply to the incorporation of new tools and reporting activities. Though these new tools are helping students and professors to look at business beyond the financial bottom line, they have so far failed to help students and professors to understand the deeper ethical meaning of the business world. In this sense, one the limiting paradigms is the one that considers business school simply a professional school with a prioritization of the teaching of useful content. This paradigm prevents the incorporation of content and approaches, which could help students to understand better the ethical and anthropological roots of their profession.

I will elaborate on these issues in the paper and will propose the promotion of the concept of character education as a suitable vehicle for the general re-introduction of ethical and anthropological content in business schools. The author argues that this strategy could support the inspiration of the sense of vocation between business schools students and could help anthropology be seen as more relevant for business schools.

Introduction: Role of Business Schools and the Formation of Leaders

In a society powered by its economy and a mechanistic vision of the human being, it is more needed than ever that business schools—the crib of managers, entrepreneurs, and business leaders—take the responsibility for educating leaders who display a broad and deep view of the person and the society, who understand the meaning of the economy, and who are motivated not only for their own interest, in other words, exclusively for their profit. In other words, we need that business schools educate leaders with a deep sense of the meaning of their profession. It means that they see their business profession as a calling, a vocation.

If the mentors of the business schools forget the essential and focus mainly on the superficial, this attitude will hinder the long-term perspective so needed for exercising business responsibly. Missing the long-term will leave a void in the value systems of individuals and negatively impact their character. A person’s character is built of habits that require a set of intellectual convictions or values. If business schools focus on the short term, the expected holistic education of the reality of business will become narrowed to utilitarianism. In this way, business schools might easily become simply the channels of communication toward generally accepted ideas—a place where faculty delivers acceptable ideas, not where information becomes knowledge.

To educate future leaders, business schools need to personalize their education as, in order to work in their values and deepest assumptions, they need to make an effort to understand each individual, the personal reality of each student. In this way, schools can become more efficient in appealing directly to each individual and leave their mere divulgate function in order to become more knowledge enhancers.

Learning impacts the appreciation students have of themselves. This makes the work of business school educators harder. Education is about truth, and truth often means giving up on things and perspectives, which are stable in the mindset of the students. Hence, if the student wants to learn, he needs to have the willingness to recognize his own needs and failures.

The business schools face many challenges regarding of programs: identity, faculty, environment, and the variety of demands from the different stakeholders. But, the most significant challenge is to awake an authentic willingness to learn among the students.

In my experience, on the one hand, most students come to business schools to upgrade their technical knowledge and further build their network. On the other, and sometimes primarily, they come to a business school to understand or find a vision and mission for their future career. Managers see a difference between who they are and who they think they should be. Their implicit or explicit objective in business school is many times to close this gap. Closing this gap implies a big investment in self-awareness, which schools many times do not have the capacity to undertake.

If business schools do not take their role in the formation process of business leaders seriously, and they just focus themselves in the distribution of generally accepted ideas, they run the risk of losing the trust of their communities and their leaders. That happens already, unfortunately. And, there is certain reason for this claim. Many consider that business schools do not manage to send the right message or they do not send it in the right way.

The role of a business school is nothing less than giving to men the possibility to reach their full potential, meanwhile they exercise an administrative function. Hence, schools should first deliver a deep vision of human problems and then teach management skills. You cannot sail a boat without expertise with the scoreboard. In the same sense, you cannot guide people without knowing who the human being is. If we train people with the wrong assumptions, then we will not help them in leading organizations.

Business organizations are integrated by people; therefore, it is very difficult to control them and their destiny. Once we understand people, we learn that they will not always take the most logical and linear path. Hence, business schools should leave behind not such real theories, and teach future leaders instead what human nature is and the meaning of business activity.

The Concept of Human Being in Business Schools

Business schools play a fundamental role in creating the concept of business that leaders have. This concept ends up as a determining factor of the behavior, which is considered adequate for the development of business activity. This influence of business schools in the business world is not at all identical everywhere. Organizations themselves, of course, influence the understanding of the reality of business. However, business schools are the key players to foster values and ideas that enhance adequate behaviors in the people who might become leaders and executives.

The recent economic crises have stressed the concern regarding the role that businesses play inside their communities.2 Their activity, besides the fact of being exclusively private, has an enormous impact on the whole of the society. Businesses are not only places of creation of employment and offers of services, they have become the principal agent for the management of the world’s resources, both natural and human. Therefore, any change in the way business schools approach education will not just impact business organizations but also all the stakeholders. At least in the short term, the bankruptcy of a business creates a much bigger effect than a wrong political decision.

All family and politics will depend to a large extent on how organizations run their internal life. This is a call to no longer miss the social character of any business organization. The social character of the firm cannot be avoided anymore. Recent financial crises exposed the consequences of companies, whose aims are not directed toward the common good. An irresponsible management style produces prejudice not only to the firm itself but also to many other stakeholders.3 These visible consequences triggered a more fluid discussion on the significance of responsible management.

Business schools have been embedded with the predominant ideologies of the last century: individualism and utilitarianism—both are at the end two sides of the same coin.4 Given that profit has been always positioned as the fundamental and primary goal of any firm, all other objectives have been subjected to that. Maximizing shareholder value has been always considered the single most important evaluation criteria for managers. All this clearly states that other initially fundamental duties such as the quality of service provided to the community and the development of the workforce have never been top criteria for measuring success in business. In this way, the human capital became a mean for the maximization of profits as any other resource. It is apparent that such an approach can generate serious problems. When there is no connection between the well-being of the person, of the community, and of the business, the conflict of interest will just naturally emanate.

Obvious challenges arise: should business benefit fit shareholders or society? What is the goal of profit? Is it not clear that profit is purely an instrumental reality rather than an honorable aim serving a larger goal? How should those involved in business activities benefit from them in terms of personal development? Individualism, the loss of the notion of person and common good, ends up making human relations just a means for achieving material ends rather than personal growth.

There are, though, trends toward the fostering of a more human vision of business. This more human side is justified mainly from a utilitarian perspective: if we want sustainable growth, we need quality in human relationships. The idea of the firm as a mean toward more fundamental objectives is shared neither in practice nor in theory. Many of the failures of the business community are connected with this misunderstanding of the role of business. We can observe even problems in social development as poverty and different forms of slavery.5

Besides utilitarianism, an individualistic vision of man prevails. Individualism stresses the satisfaction of the individual’s own needs above the ones of the community. The community is attached to man and social relations are considered instrumental for achieving exclusively individual goals. The community becomes a distribution system of individual goods, and human relations are subjected to a system that excludes through individual possession. Holding something implies that someone else is excluded of it. Departing from here, citizens consider that their own achievement of a certain good implies others’ exclusion of this good. The ideal of shared value is deemed as unviable. This deep split of goods is at the end the understanding of the social phenomenon as a result of a contract where the individual interest is the foundation stone. With all this said, it is clear that in this concept of business, other individuals are mainly instrument for the achievement of my own good.6

If we look at the reality of the firm, it all implies to decontextualize the business reality, narrowing it down to the production of profit just for profit. If there is not common good, there is no reason to subordinate one’s own interest for the sake of others’ interest. Why should I care about social well-being if it does not add to my financial wealth? The business or the individual will do what produces a benefit and only that.

Given these philosophical principles—utilitarianism and individualism—there is not room for doing things beyond our own interests. Given that we understand man as individual, other or others do not have relevance in the development and fulfillment of human nature. Only in understanding the human being as a person, and then as a relational being, does the quality of the human relations appear as an opportunity for growth and plenitude of human nature.

An Anthropological Proposal

If our main objective is to shape an anthropological foundation of business, we should start from the most basic of the anthropological principles: man is a person and, therefore, the author, center, and end of all social and economic life. Hence, we cannot speak about the anthropological foundation of business, without discussing first its main source: the person. For example, if we say that the businessman is the one who mobilizes the business world, businessman will firstly have a human meaning follow by a professional one. As a consequence, due to the fact that we talk about the businessman first as a person and then as a business-person, the ethical meaning of his work will have a renewed significance.

Man has plurality of dimensions. This plurality does not mean dualism, but rather, duality as these dimensions are different realities in terms of relevance, but they do not oppose each other. Moreover, these realities need each other.7 8

Business activity is in itself a human dimension, a human dimension that complements itself with others. This dimension has a certain position in relationship to other dimensions, and it needs others in order to gain understanding of its significance. It is clear then that an homo economicus

vision of the human being—an underlying assumption in business education—where everything in man is directed toward the maximization of business profit is at least primitive as it forgets the vision of man as composed of a plurality of dimensions.

The most radical human dimension and the basis of all others is the distinction between being and essence. The act of being is the very same human person, his personal intimacy. The essence is composed of reason and will. The act of being is superior to the essence as we are capable of perfecting reason and will. Man is more than his reason and will. This distinction proves that it makes sense of the existence of order between different human dimensions. Understanding Leonardo Polo’s dimension of the act of being will clarify the significance of the business dimension of man.

The act of being is conformed by four transcendentals: personal love, personal knowledge, personal freedom, and personal coexistence. These are not things that the human being has in terms of possession, they are rather aspects of who the man is.

The first transcendental is personal love. This the first and the one, which describes the best the human person. All other transcendentals are subordinated to this one. We are not talking about a potency, we are talking about an act, the act of love, the love that overflows, and whose most authentic manifestation is to give and to give something that is superior to everything else.9

Human love is constituted of accepting, giving, and gift. It is all about accepting/giving man as man in order to exercise any of the other human dimensions. Hence, we cannot accept/give the human dimension of business without first accepting man as a person. Furthermore, man cannot give if he is not welcomed first and if he does not accept to be welcomed first. Man can only give as long as he accepts to be welcomed. Lastly, we have the gift; man can only offer gifts as long as he gives first himself to others. The gift is just a thing and therefore the last dimension of the transcendental of love.

The second transcendental is personal knowledge, and it implies basically the awareness of our own personal meaning. There cannot be personal acceptance if there is not first personal knowledge. There cannot be acceptance by others if we are not first accepted by ourselves. We do not give to others what we do not know or we do not accept first. Without self-giving, gifts become scarce, and therefore, the natural order of man gets broken. Personal love falls short as it cannot plainly do what is proper of itself, that is, to give.10

The third transcendental is human freedom. This is the basis of ethics, as without freedom, there would not be choice, and without choice, there would not be room to choose behavior. We would end up in determinism and the consequent negation of ethics. Furthermore, without capacity of choice, there would not be human work, as it would imply the denial of choosing a personal way of production of wealth. Without human work, there would not be a business world.

The last transcendental is personal coexistence. This implies the opening of each human person to his own intimacy. This implies that every person is potentially open to his own intimacy, to his deepest meaning and being. However, no one can be alone, not even in his deepest intimacy. We need others to be. Analogically, an isolated person is not the unit of the business world, but rather the person who coexists with others, therefore an organization.

After outlining the four transcendentals, we can position business activity as a natural reality in each man. A man is in his very roots a being who acts in business—not a being who acts for business. As man is a being who gives, he has the capacity to offer gifts. If work would not exist, there would not be a business world, and without a business world, man could not continue giving, as work means essentially to give. Man gives because he is capable of more, he is not satisfy just receiving.

Summarizing and simplifying, managers should understand the human transcendental, as the business world is conformed by persons who are essentially lovers, aware of themselves, free, and need to coexist with others. Without understanding man, managers cannot develop their organizations fully.11 The business-person should start understanding who is firstly himself and who are the others. In a way, he needs to progressively know the proper personal meaning of each person of the organization. He should grasp as well the common nature of all men—the natural law—and how it could be perfected.12

Regarding freedom, a good leader knows that freedom and motivation—and ultimately productivity—correlate. The more free a business-person is, the more likely that he will manage to insert more meaning in his decisions. Further, the more free his workers are, the more he can guarantee personal initiative in the fulfillment of his decisions. If the person that manages, promotes his subordinates more, they will do things with more freedom and, therefore, with more responsibility.13

Finally, we want to call into consideration that, given that a person becomes fully himself giving, the content and beneficiaries of the gifts are important. The more humanizing the content of the gift is and as more people can accept the gift, the more personal development will occur. A consequence is that a business activity, in order to become humanly enriching, cannot provide benefit to just a “few”, to just the shareholders. Any business activity should create positive change in the whole society. Then, society as a beneficiary of the business activity becomes essential for making business meaningful.14

Wrapping up: business activity is a real dimension of man, and exists, thanks to the pre-existence of him. Man can make business meaningful if he knows himself and knows his very nature. All this requires anthropological expertise, which allows leaders and employees to understand the very nature of business activity and work. Character education as an appropriate vehicle for introducing a more adequate anthropology.

Observing the reality of man is a fascinating though arduous task. In the context of experimental sciences, things are much simpler, as the material world is their object. Experimental sciences have a solid cornerstone: the principle of causality. Through the principle of causality, they can establish necessary and predictable natural laws. Human reality is different. How can we draw necessary and predictable laws of behavior of a being, whose fundamental characteristic is freedom? When studying human behavior, either we avoid the ambition of controlling this object or we end up pretending results.15

If there is freedom, not everything can be determined by law. The act of being of man is radically different from the rest of the created universe.16 Because he is free, he attributes meaning to everything he does. The direction of his life is ultimately the result of the accumulation of his decisions. These decisions sometimes may be driven partially by the trivial or unexpected, but freedom will give them always the dynamic of decision–action rather than cause–effect.17

Therefore, the study of human behavior will be different than the study of nature. Needless to say, the different dimensions of the human being will require inputs from branches other than philosophy. So, our claim is not one of isolation of the humanistic sciences from experimental sciences. Rather, in order to understand the human being, an interdisciplinary approach will be needed.

One of the most crucial distinctions between human being and the rest of the universe and that has a determinant consequence in social sciences, including business, is the following: the universe is a useful thing, man is absolutely useless. The universe is for man. Each element in nature has an assigned role and a function amidst the whole universe. The human being is completely different. The human being does not seek to adapt to the environment, he adapts the environment to his needs.18 The existence of man is not conditioned by nature. He is an end in himself, and his main concern is his own development. His own development is simply to seek his plenitude as man, and all his behavior is in this sense ethical: it helps or restrains his own ultimate fulfillment.

Summing up: man seeks fundamentally and freely his own fulfilment. And, he does it with full personal responsibility, deciding why and whom. Using plainly this responsibility makes the man full of life. Every man has a life that is expecting to be lived, not external causes will decide for him. This indetermination, in certain way, leaves man in a situation of risk. The life of every man, independent of the context, is essentially risky because it depends on the way how he exercises freedom. Hence, a learning process is not so much about understanding the context as how to drive the context according to our needs.19

Education is, then, primarily a gateway to our own world. Its relevance is not connected simply with its scientific–technical side. Its relevance is fundamentally connected with the heart of man, his capacity and clarity for decision, his character. The main object of education is man. All other objects are subordinated, as they just constitute instruments for achieving the main goal: the fulfillment of man, the perfecting of his character.20 The value of money is connected only and exclusively with its function of acquiring other goods and of bringing support for carrying out projects or activities. The end goal of these other goods and activities are decided by man and depend on the level of awareness of his own needs.

Given all that has been aforementioned, we can dig deeper on the content of education. If man is fundamentally free and he is not subjected to the determination of things, education should be the education of freedom. Then, education cannot be narrowed simply to means, but it should reach the consideration of the aims. Choosing the right aims and how to achieve them demands learning and training. At the end, any person does what he knows and will.

If the objective of life is a good life, to be happy, accomplishing it requires understanding how to reach it.21 In order to know how, we need first to know who. And, here we come to one of the most challenged principles in modern history: if it is true that man sets his own objectives, man is not fully autonomous, as he is in himself given. Humanity is given, and this is the fundamental point of departure. Therefore, education is not so much about creating a destiny as discovering man to man. Education should help man to become adapted to himself, to do what is good for himself, and this should be appealing to reason and will, in a word to character.22 Character is, therefore, the most determinant factor of our behavior. If character is educated, man will do what is good for him. Man will like what he should like and will have clarity on what is right. In education, it is important that man develops the right taste for what brings him to plenitude.

An education of character requires a holistic approach. A person exercises his character everywhere and in everything. The human life is not composed of a mosaic of disconnected realities. Instead, the life of man is one single project, which is comprehensive. Further, the different realities of the life of a person contributes or restrain his own development. His behavior in private will impact his behavior in public and vice versa. Man is always committed toward what he seeks; he identifies himself with his own aims. This is the reason that man acquires an identity with his own actions. All human behavior has a subjective consequence beyond the external consequences.

The will, even when has many concrete and small manifestations, owes its operation to the last willed end.23 Man always and in everything acts according to his last will. If man wills a fulfilled life, his life will be a continuous acting toward reaching fulfillment. When education forgets that man is one and our life is only one, or that our behavior impacts our way of being, education misses the fundamentals of our person or mixes up the order of our personal reality. All this has determinant consequences for business education. An education process of a business-person will be incomplete and even delusional if it avoids dealing with his private life and his personal development.24

Business education should primarily address character education, as it approaches the development of each person in all its integrity and recognizes that man as a free being needs to be educated on understanding and willing what is good. Character education is more effective than ethical education. Ethics will teach what is good and will primarily appeal to reason. Character education will educate not only the reason but also the will. Man will not do good just because he knows that is good, he will because knowing he will it.25


The fact that character education starts to be heard in the business world, though still in a marginal way, is a good sign. It means at least that there is a higher awareness of the moral nature of business activity. In a firm, people do not only produce goods, but there is a human side, which cannot be avoided. The work of the business-person goes beyond the productive and physical limits: it impacts the whole society, the employees, the business-person himself. The firm is not, therefore, an isolated entity. On the contrary, it is an institution that, amidst the social net, fulfills a very important function: it is the place of the personal fulfillment of all its members and the principal provider and manager of wealth.26

A large part of the global population spends a substantial time of their lives in business organizations. They devote and invest most of their talents in the goals of these entities. It is obvious, then, that the need that these organizations become an opportunity for personal growth and fulfillment. The firm becomes then one of the most fundamental places for exercising of each person’s vocation. The firm can help each person to find a meaning for his life if the firm’s underlying philosophy—there is always one!—approaches decisively the development of each person from the development of his character. If a person can use business life as an opportunity to grow in character, then business life becomes useful for achieving fulfillment in life.

We need to underline here again that business life is a human activity, and as such, is subordinated to other more fundamental dimensions of man. Business life is useful as long as it serves the whole of man. Of course, there is an objective content in business, but this is not exclusive. The subjective content of business and work is the impact that business and work has in the person who does it.

Hence, character education, it means the education of reason and will that allows people to exercise for his own good his freedom, should be a fundamental component of business education. In this way, business education will leave aside a vision of business-person, which presents him as fragmented. Only one is the person who lives in and out business. Only one is the ultimate objective of life in and out business. Therefore, there is not a basis to consider business an amoral activity, meaning an activity disconnected from man’s last aim: personal happiness.

Many challenges are ahead of a proposal of full integration of character education in business education. One is to make the participants to understand the intertwined relationship of business and life. Understanding that we can and must be happy working in business is fundamental. Avoiding narrowed and fragmented views of business activity can help the students to understand the role of their business life in the context of their lives. This triggers the understanding that the firm can improve (or harm) our own life and the lives of others. This vision will foster the sense of vocation, the sense of the call of being a business-person. To give, a constitutive element of personal being, finds in the firm the institution through which we can give our talents in a privileged context27.

Being father, brother, member of a community is all perfectly compatible with being a business-person. To foster character education is a good strategy to grow on the understanding of an idea of the firm, which is integrated with the rest of the institutions where the person is. In the large extent, to make work and business activity an opportunity to improve our humanity depends on the solidity of character education as nobody can exercise what he does not know. With character education will come along other currently popular ideas: social responsibility, broad vision, work–life balance, critical thinking, innovation. It is hard for a business-person to become a driver of the organization if he lacks the strength of will and reason, which strong character provides.

Extra Bibliography

Pablo VI. Vaticano II. Constitution pastoral Gaudium et Spes sobre la iglesia en el mundo actual. Dic 7 de 1965. From:

Claudio Andres Rivera
Associate Professor
RTU Riga Business School

1 Research Assistants: Oscar Pau Vinaixa and Guillermo Mislata Correa (University of Navarre).

2 O’Connell, M. and L. Sweeney. 2015. “An Action Plan for Implementing the Principles for Responsible Management Education in College of Business Progamme Learning Outcomes.” DIT Teaching Fellowship Reports, 2014–2015.

3 Sison, A.J.G., and J. Fontrodona. 2012. “The Common Good of the Firm in the Aristotelian-Thomistic Tradition.” Business Ethics Quarterly 22. pp. 211–246.

4 Mele, D. 2013. “Antecedents and Current Situation of Humanistic Management.” African Journal of Business Ethics 7, no. 2. pp. 10–19.

5 Ibid.

6 Sison, A.J.G., and J. Fontrodona. 2011. “The Common Good of Business: Addressing a Challenge Posed by Caritas in Veritate.” Journal of Business Ethics 100, no. 1, pp. 99–107.

7 Benedicto XVI, Caritas in Veritate, from:

8 J. F. Selles, Los tres agentes del cambio en la Sociedad civil, Tribuna siglo XXI, Madrid 2013.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Leonardo Polo, Quien es el hombre, Obras Completas Volumen X. Eunsa, Pamplona, 2016.

12 J. Fernando Selles, op. cit.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Ghoshal, S. 2005. “Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 4, no. 1, pp. 75–91.

16 Polo, L. 2016. Presente y futuro del hombre, Obras Completas Volumen X. Eunsa, Pamplona.

17 Tomas de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 1.

18 L. Polo, Quien es el hombre, ed. cit.

19 Ibid.

20 Benedicto XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 26.

21 Aristotle. 1984. “Nicomachean Ethics” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 2, ed. Barnes, J. The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

22 Tomas de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, I–II, q. 49.

23 Tomas de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, I–II, q. 10.

24 Benedicto XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 51.

25 D. Goleman, Inteligencia emocional, Kairos, Barcelona, 1996.

26 A. J. G. Sison and J. Fontrodona, op. cit.

27 L. Polo, Quien es el hombre.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.