SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Introduction to the
Philosophy of the
Human Person
Module 2- Quarter 2 – Week 3 & 4
Intersubjectivity

Department of Education ● Republic of the Philippines

1
Target
In the previous lessons, we have focused on the sense of wonder that is
essential to the act of philosophizing. In this lesson, we relocate this sense of
wonder in the other, who is just as infinitely rich in reality as ourselves.
Two important things need to be recalled. First is the concept of embodiment
which marks our unique place in time and space. Someone else can never take our
physical, historical, and social position. Despite our fundamental uniqueness, we
are still capable of understanding others even if their position is completely
different from our own.
We cannot understand others by simply observing them from a distance. We
need to genuinely listen to them. It is in communication where they open up their
unique world to us. It is only through communication where we can have access to
their inner reality.
Intersubjectivity is a structure of relationship that is supported by genuine
communication. This is what this chapter is focused on. The module is divided into
three lessons, namely:
 Lesson 1- Meaning of Intersubjectivity
 Lesson 2– An Intersubjectivity Relationship Across Differences
 Lesson 3- Genuine Communication and Intersubjectivity
After going through this lesson and learning materials you are expected to:
a. Realize that intersubjectivity requires accepting differences and not
imposing on others;
b. Explain that authentic dialogue means accepting others even if they
are different from themselves; and
c. Performs activities that demonstrate an appreciation for the talents of
persons with disabilities and those from the underprivileged sectors of
society.

2
LESSON 1: MEANING OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY

Defining Intersubjectivity: Gabriel Marcel

We all live in the world surrounded by different people with different background and
personality. Relating with others and settling our differences is not always an easy task but
it’s a task that we have to embrace since we all desire to live peacefully in a world that we
shared with them no matter how different they are to us. Since we, also, benefit from living
with others, like security and companionship, we tried to establish harmonious relationship
with them. Some could say that relationship is a blessing but, perhaps, this is not true for
others who find it more of a curse. Some relationship last longer and touches more lives,
while other relationships ended even before the relation takes root. Trust or suspicion,
authentic communication or lies and dishonesty, unconditional love or self-interest are just
some of the possible causes of strengthening or breaking human relationship. How could we
achieve and maintain good and fulfilling relationship with others who are different from us?
This will be the thrust of this chapter.

In its most general sense of that which occurs between or exists among conscious human
actors, INTERSUBJECTIVITY is a little more than synonyms for THE SOCIAL. It denotes a
set of relations, meanings, structures, practices, experiences, or phenomena evident in
human life.

In another sense, INTERSUBJECTIVITY is the sharing of experiential content (feelings,

perceptions, thoughts, and linguistic meanings) among a plurality of subjects.

INTERSUBJECTIVITY, refers to the condition of man, a subject, among other men, who are
also a subjects. We cannot speak of man without implying and drawing from his
situatedness within the world, and this situatedness always involves other subjects such as
himself is. Man is a being with others.

Intersubjectivity, a term originally coined by the philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859–1938),

is most simply stated as the interchange of thoughts and feelings, both conscious and
unconscious, between two persons or “subjects,” as facilitated by empathy. To understand
intersubjectivity, it is necessary first to define the term subjectivity – i.e., the perception or
experience of reality from within one’s own perspective (both conscious and unconscious)
and necessarily limited by the boundary or horizon of one’s own worldview. The term
intersubjectivity has several usages in the social sciences (such as cognitive agreement
between individuals or groups or, on the contrary, relating simultaneously to others out of
two diverging subjective perspectives, as in the acts of lying or presenting oneself somewhat
differently in different social situations); however, its deepest and most complex usage is
related to the postmodern philosophical concept of constructivism.

Intersubjectivity is “the realm of existence to which the preposition with properly applies”
(Marcel, 1950: 180). There are instances in which we use the preposition with – it doesn’t
simply mean being together through aggregation like the way passengers in a jeepney are
together, let’s say, on a rainy day, where they all cramp together, each one scrambling for
space to sit on. Their bodies may be touching, bumping, impinging on one another’s flesh,
yet we do not say that the passengers are with each other. They may be facing each other, in
the same way that family members on a dinner are faced toward each other, but the
presence of one passenger with another passenger is not a co-presence.

To be with the other is to open myself to being of the other, which is a mystery. As we have
shown in our discussion of embodied spirit, we have distinguished the treatment of a
human person as “problem” from that of a “mystery”. Being a mystery, the human being is
removed from the category of things, or of “having”. Something “I have” is an instrument
that one can possess, use, and discard after use. That is why any treatment of the person as
a mere tool can be manipulated, any treatment of a person as a beast, leads to a cry for
justice; for it does violence to the dignity and essence of a human person. To mutually
respect each other as subjects, that is intersubjectivity.

3
The word “living” is a general term that covers plant, animal and human life. The medical
sciences have a specific definition of life – “the state of existence characterized by such
functions as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, and response to stimuli”
(Medilexicon, 2016). If we closely look at this definition, we would note that it refers not only
to human life but to animal life in general.

Marcel, however, argues that there is more to human life other than the vital signs we share
with animals in general. This is evident in some people who experience the loss for the drive
to live. For Marcel, there is a seeming contradiction here because we use two different
senses of the word “living”. One refers to a scientific definition, another points to a more
specific form of living which Marcels singles out as “human living.” “Human living” is “living
of something other than itself” (Marcel: 171). The center of human life is outside of itself.
This is captures in one of the teachings of Jesus Christ, said “Whoever finds his life will lose
it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39)

This is Marcels’ intuition about human life. He tests this by imagining the life of slaves who
get enraged by their situation. When slaves are reduced into mere objects or instruments
and are not given due respect as person, there is a voice deep down that nags them, “There
must be more to my life than bearing this yoke imposed unjustly upon me.” The cruel
master might say in reply, “What is there to complain about? I give you enough money to
feed yourself. For that you are alive. Why not be contented?” What the cruel master fails to
see is that human life is not just about catering to one’s biological sustenance. Human life
has to have meaning.

For Marcel, we find that meaning outside of ourselves – in the other. The French word for
meaning, sens, literally means direction. Hence, the argument here is that life is human as
it is propelled or directed towards something other than itself. A life that is only concerned
about its biological sustenance is focused only on oneself. People who live in fear that their
properties might be taken away from them isolate themselves by putting up high walls both
literally and figuratively. When the focus is on one’s survival and the preservation of the
means for that survival, human life becomes stale like a puddle of water that only receives
and never flows onto other channels. This makes us no different than the prey whose only
concern is to survive from his predator’s attack. It makes us no different from animals.

By contrast, people who live for others, ironically, are those who feel more fulfilled. We learn
about saints, martyrs and heroes who gave their lives for others, and we wonder where they
draw their strength and superabundant love. For Marcel, these are the people who
embraced the reality of human living. They live for others because it is who they are; it is
what human living is. To be, to exist in human way, is to be with. Intersubjectivity is thus a
state in which one recognizes one’s being as a being-with-others. It is not human life if it is
centered on itself. It becomes human, that is, it is humanized, as soon as one de-centers
oneself from himself, which is when the center of one’s life is on the care for the welfare of
another.
Activity 1: PERFORMANCE TASK
Directions: Study the lyrics of The Sound of Silence. Write your Primary and
Secondary Reflect about the song in a BOND PAPER.

“The Sound of Silence”

(Simon & Garfunkel)

Hello darkness, my old friend “fool,” said I, “you do not know

I've come to talk with you again Silence, like a cancer, grows.
Because a vision softly creeping Hear my words that I might teach you
Left its seeds while I was sleeping Take my arms that I might reach you.”
And the vision that was planted in my brain But my words like silent raindrops fell
Still remains Within the sound of silence And echoed in the wells of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone And the people bowed and prayed
'Neath the halo of a street lamp To the neon God they made
I turned my collar to the cold and damp And the sign flashed out its warming
And the words that it was forming
When my eyes were stabbed

4
by the flash of a neon light And the sign said,
That split the night “the words of the prophets
And touched the sound of silence Are written on the subway walls
And in the naked light I saw And tenement halls.”
Ten thousand people, maybe more And whispered in the sound of silence
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening

People writing songs

that voices never share
and no one dare
disturb the sound of silence

Does the song explain intersubjectivity? How? Write your reflection on a BOND
PAPER.

LESSON 2: AN INTERSUBJECTIVITY RELATIONSHIP ACROSS DIFFERENCES

We are all unique individuals. Most of the time, we look at our differences and may have
labels towards one another. Though we are part of our society, we are still different
individuals living in this society. Each of us will have different appearances or points of
view.

The Phenomenology of Intersubjective Relationship Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of

Communicative Action

Mutual understanding is an important telos of any conversation be it a simple dialogue or

an argumentation. Thoughts are refined, relationship is deepened, trust in others and
confidence in oneself are built through communication. When people converse bridges are
constructed, strangers become friends, and individuals turn into a society of people. Life-
experiences, however, proves that this is not always the case. In fact, it is common to see
individuals with different backgrounds such as way of thinking, believing, and behaving
could easily come into conflict when they communicate. To avoid arriving at that point,
Jurgen Habermas introduce a path leading to mutual understanding through his theory of
communication.

Jürgen Habermas, a known German sociologist and philosopher in the tradition of critical
theory of the second half of the 20th century, is perhaps best recognized for his theory on
communicative rationality. In “What is Universal Pragmatics?” found in his book
Communication and the Evolution of Society, he identifies and reconstruct “universal
conditions of possible understanding [Verständigung]”(Habermas, 1979, p. 1). He, first,
introduces various forms of action that human beings use like conflict, competition,
strategic action that facilitate understanding but he singled out “speech actions” for he
believes that speech acts (dialogue) were predominant means by which understanding is

achieved. He formulated four tests, or validity claims on comprehensibility, truth,

truthfulness, and rightness that must occur in conversation to achieve mutual
understanding. Anyone, according to him, who engaged themselves in a speech
act/dialogue has to fulfill the following: first, both speaker and hearer must use
comprehensible expressions in which they both understand; second, the speaker should use
a true proposition so that the hearer can share in the speaker’s knowledge; third, the speaker
must be truthful in his intention in order to elicit trust from the hearer; and, fourth, both
speaker and hearer must agree on the right utterance with respect to a recognized normative
background (Ibid., pp. 2-3). The first universal validity claim of Habermas on
comprehensibility pertains to the use of ordinary language. If the meaning of a word or
statement is defined by the ordinary language in which both speaker and hearer are
familiar with then, for sure, understanding will be achieved, especially, if the ordinary
language is the native language of both speaker and hearer. This means to say, that for
Habermas, the use of common language in which two individuals in a dialogue are familiar
with is an important instrument towards understanding. The second universal validity
claim of Habermas on truth refers to how true the uttered statement in reference to
objective facts. If customer asks a waiter for a glass of water, the request will surely be
understood and it will be granted. But if a customer asks for a “Kryptonite Salad” in which
5
the restaurant doesn’t actually serve and the waiter is not familiar with, the request will
surely be rejected for confusion and misunderstanding between the customer and waiter
will surely take over. The third validity claim of Habermas on truthfulness pertains to the
genuine intention of the speaker which is essential for the hearer’s gaining trust. Sincerity
in relationship is an important aspect in achieving mutual understanding and it is assessed
by considering the congruence of the expressed meaning and the speaker’s agenda.
Whenever other’s give advice, we appreciate them when they clearly showed their care
through consistency in their words and actions; while, we are repulsed by those whose
actions contradict their words. Hence, it is also important that we have a genuine intention
while conversing with others in order that we gain their trust. For trust breaks down
barriers of suspicions but nurtures and deepens relationship. Sometimes, familiarity with
each other is helpful in determining the truthfulness of intention. And so when the request
for “Kryptonite Salad” is made and the waiter is familiar with the customer, as their regular
visitor, then the request could be received as a joke and in which case, usually, gives smile
to the waiter or opens for a casual conversation between the two. If the customer is a
stranger and, worst, the request is given with a serious face, the waiter, for sure, feels
discomfort, confusion, and, perhaps, even threaten by the customer’s behavior. These
feelings become now a hindrance for understanding and the beginning of rejection. And
lastly, the validity of claim of Habermas on rightness pertains to the acceptable tone and
pitch of voice and expressions. Filipinos, generally, are intimidated, irritated, and even
threaten when someone talk with a high pitch or a loud voice as in a shouting manner.
While low and gentle voice make us calm and relax and, in certain situation, make us
recognize the sincere words of the others. Perhaps, this is something we acquire in our
family that whenever we make mistake our parents, sometimes, have a loud, “angry voice”
which frightened us but when they are calm we find their words assuring and comforting.
Hence, the manner of utterance or way of speaking use in conversation could either be a
hindrance or means for genuine understanding.

Comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness, and rightness, for Habermas, are significant

factors for authentic dialogue to occur leading to better relationship. Habermas believes
that when actors do not violate any of the validity claims in their speech acts, it would
result in intersubjective “reciprocal understanding, shared knowledge, mutual trust, and
accord with one another” (Ibid., p. 3). The byproduct of such communication is thus a
transformation in the relationship of the two individuals engaged in a dialogue. Hence, for
Habermas it is never the goal of communicative action to force or influence the other’s
decision but to reach a mutually satisfying agreement or understanding through the use of
dialogue and communication skills (Baynes 1998, 195; Rasmussen, 1990, p. 27).

Habermas theory of communication reminds us on the importance of authentic

communication in the cessation of conflicts, avoidance of misunderstanding, and
establishment of intersubjective relationship. Living with others having different

characters, conviction, and thinking, it’s common for conflicts to arise at any moment and
hinders good relationship with others. Yet, this could be avoided when individuals are
aware of how the use of language, the manner of speaking, the truthfulness of the words,
and the sincerity of the intention are all affecting their understanding of the others and vice
versa. It’s not enough that one is aware, he/she must also do something about it in order to
build relationship. It’s never, for Habermas, the aim of dialogue to build fences through
uninformed judgement but rather mutual understanding and respect for others who are
different from us. It would be hard for us to understand the others or to recognize those
people with disabilities, the underprivileged, and the LGBT group unless we sit down and
talk to them with an open ears and compassionate heart. It is through sincere dialogue that
we grow together with others as an authentic person in such a way that a long-standing
stereotyping image is dissolved; “fences” of mistrust and suspicion is overcome; mutual
understanding is achieved; people who are previously at odds with one another become
friends or allies; and new perspectives/insights are gained resulting to a stronger bond of
relationship. In our current time when most individuals and groups tried to separate
themselves from the others through their profession, status, race, ethnicity, and even
political affiliation by developing their own vocabularies, values, and convictions, there is
more reason for Habermas’ validity claim to occur. Sincere dialogue builds bridges by
encouraging individuals’ collaborations in the creation of a common shared world where
everyone could live in harmony and unity while maintaining their diversity.

6
However, though Habermas is indeed correct in saying that communication is important in
building intersubjective relationship, it’s still not enough unless we also realize how
indispensable the presence of “other” in our life. Martin Buber’s I-Thou Relationship, in the
next section, will elucidate us on how intersubjective relationship is a necessary condition
for authentic living.

Martin Buber’s I-Thou Relationship

The onset of industrialization and the growth of large urban cities, for Martin Buber, has
dehumanized the modern man by converting him from subjects into objects through the
instrumentality of the machine as “machines which were invented in order to serve men in
their work were no longer, like tools, an extension of man’s arm but man became that
extension doing the bidding of the machines”(See Curtis & Boultwood, 1975). The way man
treats the machine as an object becomes also his way of treating the other human person.
To radically break from these prevailing attitudes in order to establish an ethical principle
on human relationship anchored on the dignity of the human person, Buber introduces his
I-Thou philosophical theory.

Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher, became famous through his 1923
philosophical writings entitled I and Thou (Ich und Du). The major theme of the book is that
authentic human existence manifests in genuine dialogue with each other, with the world,
and even with God. The book explored the psychology of individual man in two distinct
relationships, namely, the ‘I-It’ and the ‘I-Thou’ (Buber, 1958, p. 3).

The first mode, which Buber calls “experience” (the mode of ‘I–it’), is the mode that modern
man almost exclusively uses. Through experience, man collects data of the world, analyses,
classifies, and theorizes about them. This means that, in terms of experiencing, no real
relationship occurs for the “I” is acting more as an observer while its object, the “it” is more
of a receiver of the I’s interpretation. The “it” is viewed as a thing to be utilized, a thing to be
known, or put for some purpose. Thus, there is a distance between the experiencing “I” and
the experienced “it” for the former acts as the subject and the latter as a passive object, a
mere recipient of the act (Buber, 1958:4). Since there is no relationship that occurs in
experience, the “I” lacks authentic existence for it’s not socially growing or developing
perhaps only gaining knowledge about the object. So, for Buber, unless the “I” meets an
other “I”, that is, an other subject of experience, relationship is never established. Only
when there is an I-I encounter can there be an experience (Buber, 1958, pp. 5-7).

In the other mode of existence, which Buber calls “encounter” (the mode of I–Thou), both
the “I” and the ‘other’ enter into a genuine relationship as active participants. In this
relationship, human beings do not perceive each other as consisting of specific, isolated
qualities, but engage in a dialogue involving each other’s whole being and, in which, the
‘other’ is transformed into a “Thou” or “You” (Buber, 1958, p. 8). This treating the other as a
“You” and not an “it” is, for Buber, made possible by “Love” because in love, subjects do not
perceive each other as objects but subjects (Buber, 1958, pp. 15-16). Love, for Buber,
should not be understood as merely a mental or psychological state of the lovers but as a
genuine relation between the loving beings (Buber, 1958, p. 66). Hence, for Buber, love is an
I-Thou relation in which both subjects share a sense of caring, respect, commitment, and
responsibility. In this relationship, therefore, all living beings meet each other as having a
unity of being and engage in a dialogue involving each other’s whole being. It is a direct
interpersonal relation which is not mediated by any intervening system of ideas, that is, no
object of thoughts intervenes between “I” and “Thou”(Buber, 1958, p. 26). Thus, the “Thou”
is not a means to some object or goal and the “I”, through its relation with the “Thou”,
receives a more complete authentic existence. The more that I-and-Thou share their reality,
the more complete is their reality.

Buber, looking at the main problem of human society in his time, claims that the problem
of human life in the modern age lies on the mode of the I–It relation. Modern human
relationship is mostly grounded on others viewing another human person as an “it” rather
than as a “Thou” and treats everyone as a means to their selfish ends (Buber, 1958, pp. 37-
38, 47). The human person, thus, becomes alienated in this It-world (Buber, 1958, p. 68).
Most modern human beings, according to him, feel at some point in their life an existential
anguish, worries of meaninglessness, and the sense of impending doom as a result of an
strict reliance on ‘experience’ to the exclusion of an ‘encounter’ or on the attitude of relating
7
with things (I-It) rather than relating with persons (I-Thou) (Buber, 1958, p. 70). With this
situation, Buber gives his solution to modern man’s woes by emphasizing on the value of
encounter based on relation to “Thou” rather than experience of “it”.

Buber further argues that there is something more lasting and more fulfilling when human
persons encounter each other through an I-Thou mode of relationship. The I-Thou could also
bring an absolute relation, an encounter with an Absolute Thou, God (Buber, 1958, p. 78).
In the I-Thou relation between the individual and God, there is a unity of being in which the
individual can always find God. In this relation, there is no barrier of other relations which
separate the individual from God and, thus, the individual can speak directly to God.
However, he contends that the Eternal Thou is not “an object of experience or an object of
thought”, or something which can be investigated or examined (Buber, 1958, p. 112). One
must employ faith to encounter him for only through faith that the eternal Thou can be
known as the “Absolute Person” who gives unity to all beings. We cannot also seek our
encounter with God but can only ready ourselves for that encounter (Buber, 1958, p. 80).
When that encounter with the Eternal Thou occurs then we come to see every other being as
a Thou (Buber, 1958, p. 82). By doing this, one can then understand the universe in its
relation to God for this is the only way to fully comprehend the world. Buber also contends
that the I-Thou relation between the individual and God is a universal relation which is the
foundation for all other relations for God is the “Thou” who sustains the I-Thou relation
among beings. If the individual has a real I-Thou relation with God, the individual have a
real I-Thou relation with the world for his I-Thou relation with God is the basis for his I-Thou
relation with the world (Buber, 1958, pp. 106-107). Filled with loving responsibility, given
the ability to say Thou to the world, man is no longer alienated, and does not worry about
the meaninglessness of life (Buber, 1958, p. 118) but find himself fulfilled and complete in
that relation.

Buber’s I-Thou mode of relationship has shown us a clearer path to genuine living through
authentic relation to others. By valuing the others we also encourage or give them reason to
value us. Authenticity, therefore, lies in reciprocal intersubjective relations wherein despite
our differences we recognize each other as humans. The others are not means, tools, or
instruments for the fulfilment of my whims but, rather, they are a companion in life, a
friend to rely on, a person worthy to live with. Life is best lived when others are there to
encourage me when I feel giving up; to challenge me so I can bring out the best in me; to
remind me when I forget to act morally; or even just to sit beside me while listening to me in
my loneliest moment. But my life will be more authentic when I manifest those things (I
mentioned) to others. In this era of technology, when people are more engrossed in their
gadgets, more superficial in dealing with each other, more individualistic in doing things
solely by themselves, an authentic I-Thou mode of human relationship is significantly
essential more than ever. People used to spend more time touching their gadgets than talk
with the person in front of them. There is no substitute to the value of real encounter with
real people for a sense of care, respect, and commitment is only built through I-Thou
relationship.

In addition, Buber’s I-Thou did not only deepen our respect and the value we give for each
other as human, it also made us connect to God, whom we always set aside in our life.
Buber is clear in his statement that I-Thou relationship is not just a plain human encounter
but also a divine encounter with God. As a Jew, Buber saw and understood love more than
simply a human emotion but as a gift given by God whose movement is always towards
establishing rapport with others. It is not what I need or what other’s need but what we
both need in order to live life to the full. In living life to the full, one does not only encounter
another human person but God himself. And in so doing, one cannot live his/her life with
authenticity without God. This, perhaps, is also what is lacking in Husserl’s theory. Buber’s
I-Thou is not geared towards individuality but on complementarity of each other establish
through I-Thou relationship. This is a challenge to today’s values which geared towards “love
for oneself”. Facebook or any social networking website has given us free access on how
people look in their “selfies”, what food they have eaten, what place they have visited, who
are their friends, what do they think about an issue. These are all expressions of self-love
looking for recognition. This desire for other’s recognition will soon result to psychological
dependency on what others say. Buber is clear that the focus should be on mutual relation
and not necessarily on individual’s needs for social recognition. In I-Thou relation,
individuals give recognition spontaneously as a result of love and it is not because someone
demands for it.
8
While Buber’s gives more emphasis on reciprocal intersubjective relations where the “I” and
the “Thou” achieved a more complete authentic existence, Emmanuel Levinas, on the other
hand, in the next lesson, focuses more on the “Other” as the basis of relationship. This is
another important point in intersubjective relationship in which the “Other” is given more
importance than the self.

I-THOU

Buber’s philosophy is about human person as a subject, who is being different from things
or objects. The human persons as subjects have direct and mutual sharing of selves. This
signifies a person-to-person, subject-to-subject relation or acceptance, sincerity, concern,
respect, dialog, and care. The human person is not just being-in-the-world but being-with-
others, or being-in-relation.

I-It relationship

In contrast, to realm of meeting and dialog, Buber cites I-It relationship. I-It relationship is
a person to thing, subject to object that is merely experiencing and using; lacking
directedness and mutuality (feeling, knowing, and acting)

Emmanuel Levinas’ Face of the Other

The moral philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas differs from traditional ethical theories like that
of deontology which focuses on duty, or utilitarianism which advocates happiness for the
greater number of people, or the virtue-ethics which emphasizes on the role of individual’s
character and virtue as the basis for moral act. Levinasian ethics does not legislate nor
propose any moral laws or rules as advocated by the traditional theories but emphasizes on
endless responsibility to “Others”. While Buber is immersed in relationship, Levinas is
concerned more on our infinite and unconditional duty to “others”.

Though Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) is commonly known as a French philosopher, he

was actually born in Russia, in Kovno (now Kaunas), Lithuania in 1906 to a Jewish family
rich in Jewish cultural traditions. At the event of World War I, the Levinas’s family
immigrated to France where Levinas became a citizen. Being a French citizen, he joined the
French army when World War II began. During the war, his French uniform saved him from
deportation to the gas chambers when he was captured by the Germans, while all his family
were murdered by the Nazis. Levinas’ exposure to the barbarity of the Nazi was
instrumental to the creation of his 1961 book entitled Totality and Infinity: An Essay on
Exteriority where he strives to bring people to the meaning of life through heteronomous
relation to the ‘Other’.

Levinas grounds his ethics in a criticism of Western philosophical tradition which

subordinates the personal relation with concrete person who is an existent to an impersonal
relation with an abstract “Being” (Levinas, 1961/1979, p. 36). For instance, whenever we
deal with someone, we use the values and beliefs that we inherited from our society and
used them as our basis in relating with “others”. Certain times, we use them also as
standard in which we judge “other’s” actions and character as good or bad. For Levinas,
these social values and beliefs are abstract “concept” that blurred our sight and hinder us
in seeing, accepting, and relating humanely with “others” for we give more importance to
those concepts than to “concrete person” who deserves more our attention. In relating with
others, we also apply our own “analytical or judgmental categories” focusing more on what
“I think” is good behaviour, right living, correct thinking that the “other” must elicit for
him/her to be accepted (Levinas, 1961/1979, p. 46). This, however, for Levinas, is turning
the other’s otherness into a “same” or like everyone else. This attitude also brings back the
other to oneself in a way that when one means to speak of the other, one is actually only
“speaks of oneself”, that is, of his own image (Levinas, 1991, pp110-111). It is in this case,
that the other’s “otherness” is radically negated. To this kind of ontological approach,
Levinas wishes to substitute a non-allergic relation with alterity, that is, one that caters for
the “other’s infinite otherness” (Levinas, 1961/1979, p. 38). What Levinas suggests is for us
to adopt a genuine face-to-face encounter with the “Other”. He believes that it is only in
responding to the command of the face of the ‘Other’ that an authentic ethics could be
made. He even claimed that the meaning of ethics is in responding to the needs of the
9
“Other”, to be subjected to the “Other”, and to be responsible to the “Other” without
expecting anything in return (Levinas, 1982, pp. 98-99). Levinas declares that it is through
a face-to-face encounter with the “Other” that an imperious moral urgency is raised: “My
humanity is grounded in my subjectivity and this one is in turn grounded in my face-to-face
with the other…. As a human being, the face that is in front of me summons me, asks for
me and begs me” (Levinas, 1961/1979, p. 96). Thus, the encounter with the “Other” is not
simply an encounter that one experience as one encounters other worldly objects. Rather,
the encounter with the “Other” calls on the self to respond to his/her need or summon and
not to leave him/her alone for the appeal is made in his/her weakness and vulnerability
(Levinas, 1991, pp. 9-10). This responsibility for the other is immediate and not only a
matter of perception. As soon as someone looks at me, I am responsible for him/her. This
responsibility is mine and I can neither ignore nor refuse it (Levinas, 1961/1979, p. 100).
This “Other” that Levinas refers to are the stranger, the widow, the destitute, and the
orphan to whom the self is obligated (Levinas, 1961/1979, p. 215).This reveals that Levinas’
concept of responsibility to the “Other” has preference for those who are poor, weak, and
marginalized by the society. Thus, for Levinas, doing something for the “Other” and fulfilling
one’s responsibility even to the point of sacrificing one’s life for the sake of the “Other” is the
identification mark of one’s humanity and spirituality. Levinas even says that “the ‘Other’s’
right to exist has primacy over my own” (Levinas & Kearney, 1986, p. 24). Even if one tries
to deny his responsibility to the “Other” by justifying his right to freedom, one cannot
escape the demand of the “Other” because the demand is done even “before the self can
claim its own freedom” (Levinas & Kearney, 1986, p. 27). Levinas also emphasizes that one’s
relationship and responsibility to the “Other” is “asymmetrical” or non-reciprocal in a sense
that one does not respond to the “Other” and expect or demand that the “Other” be also
responsible in return (Levinas, 1982, p. 95). Levinas’ ethics keeps redefining the terms of an
unlimited personal responsibility that would start and end beyond ontology, beyond the
“being” of the “Other”, and beyond the existence of the “Other’s” radical otherness. It is in
this sense that ethics is, for Levinas, first philosophy because of the primacy of human
relationship and intersubjectivity which reveals the fact that in the beginning was the
human relation.

Activity 2: PERFORMANCE TASK

Directions: Who are these people? Choose one person whose picture is shown below
and research about his life and works. Write a reflection paper about their significant
contributions. Use BOND PAPER for your reflection paper.

Ronel Del Rio Anna Kristina Arce Gilda Quintua-Nakahara

LESSON 3: GENIUNE COMMUNICATION AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY

In this lesson, you will learn that the best way to have a more holistic perspective is to learn
from others who see things differently from us. In short, we must learn to silence our minds
that tend to totalize things and persons, and wait for others to teach us something new. The
people who need this most are those in society whom we have already trapped within our
prejudices.

For example, we readily assume that persons with special needs have such a pitiable and
difficult life. Young points out a survey conducted in one city in which people were asked
how would they perceived their lives if they were in the shoes of a person with special need.
10
Majority of the respondents said that they would find their lives worthless and that they
would lose the drive to live. Statistics in the city, however, showed that actual PWDs
“usually think that their lives are quite worth living, and strongly wish to have
discriminatory implements removed so they can live those lives as well as possible” (Young,
1997:344-345). In other words, it is totally unfair and insulting for us to imagine that PWDs
think that their lives are not worth living. They are, as studies show, generally happy and
would rather not feel being pitied for their situation. Many of us cannot seem understand
this because we project our own definition of a happy life on them; but they are different,
and it is important for us to recognize and respect that. It does not mean however, that we
should treat them as lesser human beings. They deserve respect just as much as any other
human subject does. To recognize this is ti appreciate the meaning of intersubjectivity. The
other subject is different from me, but deserves respect as much as I do.

Genuine understanding begins with the silence that is essential to listening. We cannot
really hear what the other is saying unless we hold our tongue and tame our tendency to
speak for them. Such a silence entails moral humility. This humility is exercised through
the admission that we do not know the other person fully. With this admission we open
ourselves to the possibility that we will learn something different from them. Therefore,
understanding those who are different from us cannot happen by simply imagining
ourselves in their situation. We must listen to what they have to say.

To many of us, the act of listening seems to be an easy matter. Genuine listening, however,
entails great effort. Here are some of the things we should avoid saying if we want people to
truly open up to us (Faber and Mazlish, 1980).

1. Do not say that their feelings are invalid. There are no right or wrong feelings. Let them
express how they feel. They should not be judged for emotions that they cannot help.

2. Do not give advice if they are not asking for any. What they need is a friend who can be
with them, not some expert who can look at them in a detached way.

3. Do not philosophize about their situation as if you are above them and you truly know
what has happened.

4. Do not say “I know how you feel.” Sometimes this can really be offensive to the other
person because no one can really know how she feels unless you become her.

5. Do not say, “If I were you…,” unless she asks you what you would do if you were in her
shoes. Without her consent, saying “If I were you…,” would turn the conversation into
something about you, and not the person who needed listening too.

11
Activity 3: PERFORMANCE TASK

Directions: Answer the following question in a BOND PAPER.

1. We sometimes hear the phrase “condemned without trial.” Does this imply absence of
authentic dialogue? Explain.

2. In the past, we used the category “handicapped” or “disabled” to refer to a person with
physical or psychological disabilities. Recently, the category has changed into persons
with special needs. Do you think the change of label helps change our perception and
treatment of them? Which among the labels enables one to be a neighbour or another?
Which one serves as a barrier?

3. “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the
same man.” – Heraclitus.
How does this quote relate to the statement the other remains infinitely
transcendent, infinitely foreign?

ASSESSMENT

Direction: Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item.
Write the chosen letter on a separate sheet of paper.

_______1. The equality in love is the equality of being, not of having. This simply means
that?
A. In love, I do not surrender my liberty to the other
B. I do not become a slave to the other
C. In love, the two freedoms become one and each becomes mere free
D. All of the above
_______2. The human person is not just being-in-the-world but being-with-others, or being-
in-relation. One great example of this is?
A. Hatred to your enemy
B. Sincerity and concern to others
C. Children exploitation
D. Bullying
_______3. Which of the following is the best example of intersubjectivity?
A. Ben has always loved dogs. When his parents let him choose a family pet, he
picks a Labrador puppy from the shelter
B. When Anna was twelve, her sister told her that pickles are rotten cucumbers.
Because of this, Anna now orders all her burgers without pickles
C. When Sarah was fifteen, she went exploring in a cave and became trapped. And
she is now afraid of closed spaces
D. Tony was born with vision in only one eye. Because of this, he sometimes has
difficulty perceived depth.
_______4. The following are the characteristics of the underprivileged, except?
A. Uneducated
B. Malnutrition and poor health
C. Victims of calamity
D. Lack of shelter
_______5. The following are perception about persons with disabilities (PWD) except;
A. PWD are people with the same right as what other people does.
B. PWD’s are less productive.
C. PWD’s could possibly engage into various social activities.
D. PWD’s can contribute to the economic growth of the society.
_______6. Which of the following statement is true?
A. Most people with disabilities cannot work
B. Human person can live on his own without the help of others

12
 C. It is impossible to appreciate PWD’s and those from the underprivileged sectors of
the society
D. Everybody deserves to be treated as human being no matter what he/she looks
like
________7. The human person is not just being in the world but being-with-others, or being-
in the world but being with the following EXCEPT
A. Acceptable
B. Sincerity
C. Respect
D. Rejection
________8. No human being should become an end to him/herself. We are responsible to
our neighbor as we are to our own action, these simply means that people used the;
A. Freedom of choice
B. Pleasure pain principle
C. Rational thinkers
D. Rational animal
________9. Which of the following is not an example of I thou relationship?
A. A little boy helping an old woman carrying her things.
B. A man who pays money in exchange of sexual gratification
C. A granddaughter taking care her grandmother who is physically ill.
D. The Philippine government support person with disabilities
________10. A person experiencing an event can be called a/an___
A. Subject C. Intersubjective
B. Object D. Narrator
________11. Which of the following physical disabilities you least likely want to acquire?
A. Blindness C. Paralyzed
B. Deafness D. None of the Above
________12. Which of the following senses becomes powerful when you are blind?
A. Auditory/olfactory
B. Cutaneous/visual
C. Gustatory/auditory
D. Extrasensory perception (ESP)
________13. Authentic dialogue also means ___________ of other people.
A. Accepting the differences
B. Neglecting the uniqueness
C. Tolerating immorality
D. Complaining dissimilarities
________14. Which of the following signifies authentic dialogue towards accepting other
people even if they are different?
A. A boy sarcastically laughs at his friend after knowing about his flaws.
B. Krishna cried on her knees after learning about the pressing problems of the
minorities in their community.
C. Angie walked past the poor old man in disgust.
D. The manager rejected the job application of a person with disability even if he is
qualified.
________15. Which is true among the following statements in terms of conceptual meaning?
A. Conversation is similar to the meaning of authentic dialogue
B. Conversation is much more than a dialogue
C. Authentic dialogue is an element of “I-It” relationship
D. Authentic dialogue is much more than conversation

13
14