Introduction to the

Philosophy of the Human

Person
Quarter 2: Module 2

W 3-4

1
 Lesson
Meaning of Intersubjectivity
1

Jumpstart

Activity1

Directions: What is your impression about the picture below? Write your answer
in a separate sheet of paper.

Guide Questions:

1. What is intersubjectivity?
2. How is it related with respect?
3. Do you know people who have disabilities and underprivileged?
4. How do you deal with them?

2
Rubrics:
NEEDS
EXCELLENT GOOD SATISFACTORY
CATEGORY WORK
(5) (4) (3)
(2)
Writing is One idea The composition The ideas
IDEAS clear and may be not is somewhat do not
easy to be relevant confusing. make
understand sense.
The The The composition The
composition composition needs details to composition
creates has clear make it does not
ORGANIZATION interest, well- and interesting. have a clear
developed interesting beginning,
and beginning, middle, or
satisfying. middle, and end.
end.
The The The composition The
composition composition has a few composition
has a lot of has some powerful and has no
WORD CHOICE powerful and powerful exciting words. powerful
exciting and and
words to exciting exciting
enhance the words. words.
meaning.
 Discover

earn due to the activity you had. The next step is you read and analyze the meaning of Intersubjectivity so that you will under

Lesson I: 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.
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.

Explore

These are additional activities you need to answer so that you will understand better
what the topic is all about. Let’s go about it.
Activity 2
Directions: Study the lyrics of The Sound of Silence. Write your Primary and
Secondary Reflect about the song in a separate sheet of paper.
“The Sound of Silence”
(Simon & Garfunkel)

Hello darkness, my old friend

I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp

When my eyes were

stabbed by the flash of a
neon light That split the
night
And touched the sound of silence
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening

People writing songs

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

“fool,” said I, “you do not know

Silence, like a cancer, grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you.”
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence
Think about this!
1. Does the song explain intersubjectivity? How? Write your reflection on a
separate sheet of paper.

Rubrics

4 3 2 1
Ideas were Ideas may be Ideas were Ideas were
Development clearly evident but the present but poorly
of Ideas organized, on organization of vague developed and
point and thoughts need lack
supported with to be organization
valid reasons strengthened
Well written Well written Awkward Poor writing
and fully and most writing style with little to no
Elaboration elaborated points and points are specific details
points with elaborated general.
clear and with clear and Errors are also
accurate detailed present.
information information
Lesson An Intersubjectivity Relationship
2 Across Differences

Discover

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.

Jü rgen 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
[Verstä ndigung]”(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 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.

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 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.
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.I t 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 “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 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 separate sheet of paper for your reflection paper.

Ronel Del Rio Anna Kristina Arce Gilda Quintua-Nakahara

Rubrics:
10 7 5 3
Ideas were Ideas may be Ideas were Ideas were
Development clearly evident but the present but poorly
of Ideas organized, on organization of vague developed and
point and thoughts need lack
supported with to be organization
valid reasons strengthened
Well written Well written Awkward Poor writing
and fully and most writing style with little to no
Elaboration elaborated points and points are specific details
points with elaborated general.
clear and with clear and Errors are also
accurate detailed present.
information information
 Deepen

Activity

Directions: Answer the following in a separate sheet of paper.

1. What is the meaning of totalization? Write a paragraph of not more than
eight (8) lines.

2. Explain the invitation of openness and generosity that comes in a face-to-

face encounter.
 Lesson Genuine Communication and
3 Intersubjectivity

Discover

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. 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.

Explore

Activity 7:

Directions: Answer the following question in a separate sheet of 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?

Rubrics
4 3 2 1
Ideas were Ideas may be Ideas were Ideas were
Development clearly evident but the present but poorly
of Ideas organized, on organization of vague developed and
point and thoughts need lack
supported with to be organization
valid reasons strengthened
Well written Well written Awkward Poor writing
and fully and most writing style with little to no
Elaboration elaborated points and points are specific details
points with elaborated general.
clear and with clear and Errors are also
accurate detailed present.
information information

Deepen
Activity 8
Direction: Try to recall one of the biggest conflicts in your life that caused you a lot
of stress. Write down what you think of those people involved in this conflict in the
form of statements. When you are done writing them all down, take a deep breath,
and then rewrite those statements in the form of a question. Assume that those
questions don’t have clear answers yet. Does this change your perspective of the
conflict even in the slightest way? If yes, why do you think so? If no, why? Write
down your reflection on a separate sheet of paper.

Gauge
Activity 9
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 C. Children exploitation
B. Sincerity and concern to D. Bullying
others
 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. ictims 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
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 C. Respect
B. Sincerity 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 C. Rational thinkers
B. Pleasure pain principle 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