Man ___
---------..,.:=:,i&-S andJellowman IB' .-.1 • U&2WiliiJ.,., "'fttt m-,, ,
l'vl:irlin Buber\ ··1•:ll'111r11ls nf t!1c ' :11nhu11::111". ~l!sc11sscs ~he el~1~1 c111 s ul' dinlogll e
liv w:w v i the 0 tisi:w lcs t l1 dia ll,guc:_SCl'!lllll g , s1wcrh1ly111g. and 1111p1lS1!1011 . 111 dialo gue. 1
· iro:;: h the other as 1 rea lly am (hc1!~g). I 1x:rso11;1~l y nrnk ~ h1111 1~ rcsc111, and u11fold what is
1
11 11
: c. :• Till' basic 1110-.1 r111 c nl of dml0gu c 1s l11rn111 g lo lht: other while tli·tt
d .Jld b..-a11 ,1111
tn1c. go0 a "'' 1: ' · · '
of monologue is reflexion .
Dialogue is nol synonymous with love but is_ rcquii:cd in love. "_A Phcnomenologv of'
L .. afler bracketing thr popular notious ofl ovc, Ill particular the notion of love as "foiling
ino~;,e" d~scrib~~ th; loving encounter, th~ reciprocity of love, the creativity of love, the
ur,ion in love es a gift of selves, historical , equal, total. eternal and s;:icred.
"Max 5cheh::r's Phenomenclogy of Love" answers the question "l10w do I really know
I am (heing) iil !ovt:"' and no:just being benevolem, _feeling l?ve, prefening a va iue, blinded,
or being altruistic to the othei? 'Che ans~er: lovt: iS _ess.:;!1t_1ally.a n~o~ement from a lower
value of the object or per~on loved to :i higl1er value 1mplic1t or mt~ms1c 111 the _beloved. In
this moverr.~nt there eppea.rs 1norai goodness. The essay further clan fies the notion of values
and their hierercby. _ ~he group thefe exists any kind of personal relation. They do feel that they belong together
· Gabriel Marcel's "Ir. S.::arch of Truth and Justice" seeks to relate justice with truth.
From personal experience~, he brings out what justice is aoi: lP,gality, a chart of punishments,
equity, and isolated just dellland. Positively, justice has to do with the humanity of laws,
with aon-partisan interest, and with the totaljty of the existential relationship of man and
fellowman. (Perhaps, in addition, the relationship of man and nature insofar RS it affects the
relationship of man and fellowman.) Genuine justice has to do with "interior indtpendence
from any subjective inclination," and with respect for the inviobbility-of the human person.
The inviolability af the human person mak-!s justice the minimum demRnd of love, and the
ground for its relationship to truth a:; a value. The sacred demands that one testifies to the
truth, and this coincides wich justice.
Robert O Johann's '~The Task of Man" synthesizes the task of each person: to build a
coffiIDunity of persons: to be respom,ible for each other.
= ·==--:=========~==d:-~1.1™=.liNJ]. o~_T~~ 1N'n:R11UJ13N.1
· -· · - lry Mm!ln (:tAG··r
Tim ~OCl/\1. t,N I> TIii•. l ~J'!' l-:HIIIJM t .N
' . lt_i s ui: ual lo mwribc wlwt ti kcs phcc l,ctwccn 111c11 lo 1h1.: ~m:i;d 11.:;tl111. tlic,,;by blurring
1
a hm,i ra ~ly 11 nportant li:ic of' di 11 isi011 hctwcc;1 lv. ,, cs<;c11tiall y d11Tcrcnt are a~ or twrn .i n !ifc'.
I mrself, wh~n I began 11et1dy fifty years agu !o f!r.d my own bearings in the k,,owlc<l gc or
s~ocicly, mn~1ng _usc or the then unknown concert of ti:•; i11tcrhu1mrn ,2 n, <H.Jl: the same error.
hom that t_1111c it ~ecamc increasin gly clear to me that we :1:,vc tn do h-:: rc ..,ith c1 ~cparat1.:
ca_tcgory_ of our existence, even a S;:!parate diir.;;nsion, to use a mathematical icrrn, a11d one
~ith _which ½'.e ~re ~o familiar t~at its rcculi nrity h:1s hith,;rto almost c.sc:apcd us. Yet insight
into ils pcculianty w extremely 11nport,rnt not only fo1 uur thinkin g, but abo for otir living.
We may speak of social phenomena wherever the life of a ,,umber ,if mc11, li ved with
one anc!her, bound up together, brings in its train shared ~xpericnces and rea.:tio11s. Bu.I
to be. chus_ bound up logetl,er mean~ only that each individ u: 1 exi:;tcnce is ci1c lm,ed and
1
contamed 111 a group existence. 1t docs not mean that between on.: member and an0ther of
m_a way that !S, so ~o speak, fundamentally r\iflerer.t from every po:;sible belongir.g together
with somto~e outside the group. Ano there <lo arise, espcci:illy in the lite of sm:tiler groups,
contacts which frequently favour th1.: birth of individual rr lations, but, on the other hand,
~requently ma~e it ~ore di~ cult. In no case, however, does fllembership in a grouo necessarily
mvolve an existential relation between one member and anot~.er. It is true that there have
been groups in history which includ~d highly intern,iv·~ and intimate rdation~ beLween two
of their members-as, for instance, in the homosexual relations among the Japanese Samurai ·
or amorig Dorie warriors- and these were countenanced for the sake of the stricter cohesion
of the group. But in general it must be said that the leading elements in groups, especially
in the later course of human history, have rather been irclined to suppress the personal
relation in fi;ivour of the purely collective element. Where this latter element reigns alone or
is pre-dominant, men feel themselves to bf carried by the c-ol\ectivity, which {ifts them out
of loneliµess and fear of w:.xld and lostness. When this happens- and for modem man it is
an essential happening-the 1ife between person anci person seems to retreat more and more
before the advance of the· collective. 'fhe collective ai ms at holding in check the inclination
tb personal life. It is as though those who are bound together in groups should in the main be
concerned only with the work of the group and should tum to the personal partners, who are
tolera~ed by the group, only in secondary meetings.
Trn:::s. by Ronald Gregor Smith in Martin Buber, The Knuwledge of Man, S'.'lectPrl Essays ed. by M. Friedman,
(New York: Harper & Row, ! 96S). PP· 72 · 88 · · 1 Vol I in Di~ Gesellschaft:
2 _Das Zwischenmenchliche. S~e my Introduction ~o W~mer Somb~rt'...Das Pr~~:~~1.: Frankfurt am Main: Rutt::n
Sammbung sozialpsycholog1scherr Monographi~n, ed. by Martm tiuber (
& L~oning 1906).
 . . . _..,.., l~"J V I tYld ll

the two realms became very palpable to me on one occasion

e between \ t f t h. · In accordance w·th 1 th· it· 1s · bas1cally
·
The di~erencth procession_ through _a arge own o ah?1~vemen to w 1ch I did not
th for the tragic development w 1c I se~sed '.'.'as at hand in the Ph enomena as psycho! · I1s,Wh erroneous to try to understand the interhuman
1had joined e .
an important part O fth~ · ·
ogica • en two men converse together the psycholooical is r-Prtainly
· '
n 1did it out of sympa y of the leaders of the movemen,. While the proce~sion was O' ·

t,elone. · · ~,ho .wash.o,ieanu with another, a goo dh earte d ' w1·1d man, ' who aiso had th e h \.dd en accompamme . "situation, as each listens and each prepares to speak. Yet this is only
· 1 ti. · · · ·
. ~ of a fnenct i. . ·: m .0 .. e conversion itself, the phonetic event frau2ht \':1th meaning
desttnY · d with. 1m At that moment l stt·11 fi.et \ th at t \·1e two men really were there w,1ose
. h . meanmg 1s. •~ be _.oun_
f': d nen··her ·m one oft11e
, t,.,;o partners .1or in both-togeti1c:r, but onlv'
rorrnin. g, I converse
~ pon him. · . , , . •v
mt eir dialogue itself, m this 'between' which they li ve together. -
ark of deatu u f 1 . man near to me, near even m wnat was most remote from
[he rnagainst me, each
O
thient~ ;)' soul continually suffered from this difference yet by virtue
ol'er r om me t a ,1 . b . Th h .. .
e· ·c differ.:nt ir nfr nting me with authentic emg. en t e .ormatious sta1 i.ed o. ff
rn . , d'fference co .o. . fr . d . • . . ' BEiNG AND SEEivtlNG
oftliis very h . e was lifted out of all con ,cntatlon, ra~n rn.•o me pr~cess1on, falling
0 1 · . The essenti?.l probiem of the sphere of the interhuman i, the duaii i_y of bei ~o ani:i
and after a sb rt n~ . d it was obviously the very s,1me 1or the two with whom I had
se.emmg. 1 "
1·n with its aimless i.tep, ands After a while we passed a cafc where I had been sitting the
ed human wor - · . ·-
·ust
J . exchang . • ·an whom I ki,ew only shghtly. The very moment we pa:;sed it the ', · · . Although it_ is a familiar fact that meu arc often troubled about the impression they
da , witli a mus1c1
previous ) · .~•1an stood on the threshold, saw me, apparently saw me alone, and 1ua,k: ?n_others, this has be~n much more rliscussed in moral philosophy than in anthropology.
door upened, !he ~~: y it seemed to me as though I were taken out of G1e procession and Ye, tms 1s one of the most 1mport~nt subjects fo!" a11thropological study.
1:r!
waved to IJ'IP.. 8
0fthc prt><:en~
m~ching: frieds, and set tl,ere, ccnfrontir..g the musicia!l. I forgot that
Y •t11 •be same ~tep· I felt that I was smndinl! over there by the man ,•.1ho
We may distin~ish between two different types ofhum::n existence. The o!'le proceeds
T as wa!kine a10n2: w1 . ~ ' . . ~ d" . . fr~m what one !"eally 1s, t.½e other from what one wishes to seem. In gP.neral, the two are found
•w · ; and without a word, with::\ smile of understan mg, was answermg him. ~1xed t?getht:r. There nc>.ve probably been few men who were entirely i.odcµendeat o[ the
0 1
had called ~ tu m._,s cf th~ facts r~tumt:d to me, the procession, with my companions and 1mpress1on they made on others, while there hl!.S scarcely existed one who was exclusively
Whe:: consc1ousnes ,., .
myseif at its head, had left the ca1e behmd. . · determined by the impression made cy him. We mu-;t be c0ntent to d.i~tinwish bet\':ec!l men
in whose essential attitude the cne ur ·tte other predomin:itc:;. -
The re3.lrn of the interhuman goes for beyond that cf symp::lthy. S~ch simple happenings
can be part of it as, for instance, when two s_trangers exfch~nhg~ glancknes m 2 croh~dedbstreetcarh, This distinction is most powerfully at work. as its nature indicate:,, in the intt,human
back again into the convt:ment state o_ w1s mg to o;v not mg 2 -out eac. r~alm-that is, in men's personal dealings with cne anoiher.
at once to Sink . . b I h · h ·
other. But also every casual encounter bei.ween opp?nents e,ong~ to t e re_a!m, w en 1t Take ::\S the simpiest and yet quite clear example the situatiun in which two per-sons
affects the opponent's attitudt--that is, when sumethm~, however ,_mP_t:rcephble, h:ppens look at one another-the first belonging to the first type, the second to the sec@d. The one
between the two, nc matter w~ether it is marked at the· time by any teehng or not. T..e only who lives from his being looks at the other just as one looks at some.ant:> with wbm he
thing that !!!alters is that for each of the two men the other happens as the particular other, has personal dealings. His look is 'spontaneous,' 'without reserve;' of course he is not
that each beccrnes aware of the other and is thus related to him in such a way that he does uninfluenced by the desire to make himself understood by the other, but he is uninfluenct>d
not regard and use him a~ his object, hut as his partner i:l a living event, even if it is no more by any thought of the idea of himself which he can or should awaken in ilie person whom
than a boxing match. It i~ well known that some existentialists assert that the basic factor he is looking at. His opposile 1s different. Since he is concerned ,,..-ith the image which his
betwee!! men is that one is an object for the other. But so far as ·this is actually the case, · appearance, and especially his look of glance, produces in the other he 'mak~' this look.
the special reality of the interhuman, thP fact of the contact, has been largely elimin:!ted. It With the help of the capacity, in greater un lesser degree peculiar to man, to make a definite
cannot in:ieed be entirely eliminated. As a crude example, take two inenwho are observing element,of his being appear in his look, he produces a look which is meani !o have, and often
one another. Tne essential thing is not that the one makes the other his object, but the fact enough does hP.ve, the effect of spontaneous utterance-not only the _utte~ce of a psy~hical
that he is not fully able to do so and the reason for his failure. We have in common with all event supposed to be taking place at that very moment, but also, as 1t were, the reflection of
existing ~ings that we can be made objects of observation. But it is my pri~ilege as man that a personal life of suc;h-and-sucb a kind.
by the hidden activity of my being I can establish an impassable barrier to objectification. This must, however, be carefully distinguished from another ~rea of s~nrn:g whose
Only m partnership can my being b~ _perceived as an existing whoi{•i '• · · . ontological legitimacy cannot be doubted. I me8?.the n:alm _of• ge~mn~ seem mg, wher: ~
PTOUn~~ ~ol.:i~logi~t may object_to any separation of the social and the intei.human on_ the lad. for instance, imiIBtes his heroic model and,, 111\e he 1s _domg ~o 1s se1ze_d by ~e actuaht_:,
; th r ·1 society is ac~::lly built upon human relations and the theory of these relations of heroism, or a man pbys the part of a destm_y and c_onJ~re~ up authentic destmy. In th~s
.s ere1ore t0 be regarded as the ~ da · . ' ·· · · h situation .there is nothing false; the imitation 1s gemune 1m1tat10n and the P_ru:t played 1s
r:oncept 'relation' becom . Vt:1X oun hon of soc10logy. But ht:re an am01gmty mt e
two men in their w e; rident we spe::lk, for instance, of a comradely relation between · e the mask too is a r.~ask and no deceit. But where the sembl~ce ongm~tes from
also a lasting disp~:~-an ~ ~ . merely ~ea~ what happens between them as comrades, but
01 f::~~n ~dis perm~ated by it, the interhl~man is threatened in its very ex1stence._It 1s(~t that
n:
purely psychological ;~n ic\15 actualized m _thosP happenings aud which even includes
of the interhl•rnan 1mea:- suc as th e recollect1on of the absent comrade. But by the sphere
someone utters a lie, falsifies some account. The lie I _mean do:s not take pla~e m re ation to
articular facts, but in !"elation to existt'hce itself, and it at_tacks i~terhwnan ex1~tence a; s~.
1 1 actual happen· I • ~here are times when a man, to satisfy some stale c0nce1t, f"rfe1ts the great c ance o a e
tend·
. . mg to grow into mutu'soIe Y 1,.. mgs between men, whether wholly lllUtuat or
indispensable. The sphen:: ~/the aL'.ons. For th~ participation of both partners is in principle happenit\g between I and Thou.
othe• We 11 1· e mterhuman 1s · h" h
·· ca ls unfolding the dialogical. one 1n w 1ch a person is confronted by t e

?.14 215
 r-· •J v 1 1vt an
Ph ilosophv of Man
•ne
, ;magi
two men, whose life is. dominated
..
by appe arance s·tt ·
1
1.,Ct us n° ~all them Peter and P:ml. Let us hst the different configurati-' m_g, and
to/king rogethe~here is Peter as he wishes to appee.:- to Paul, and Paul as he wi~~s which are
in volved. firs\ce is Peter as he really appl:'ars to Paul , th::t is Paul's im es to appear By far th PERSONAL M:\KINC PRESENT
pr I e greater part of what i d .
ro Peter. Th_en t n~t in tJ1e least coincide with what Pete1 w;shes Paul t age of Peter, which an:~:; b:~d pr~cisely described as :;:e~~ify;~~d ~onversat\on among men would be more
. . ral aoes . o sc:e· "nd . ·1
m g: ,!ethe reverse situation. Funher, there ~s Peter as he appears to himself ' - sim1 arly h '. tac _' although turned to h . n genera ' people do not speak tn one
15 nd : : .e hfe con:.1sts of nothing but list e_other, rtally speaks to c. fictitious -:ourt of appeal
rher. h·mself Lastly, tlle.re are the bodily Petet" and the rodily p I T ' a ~au! as he
appears to I h. , -
. hostly appearances, w 1c11 111ii1g
;ind six g
1
.
. .e m m:iny wavs
au . wo ltvmg b ·
, in- the con versat·10n betw emgs h
famills sta~ of affa_irs in the TheCh~;;n~:~h h1;. _c:ekhov has given poetic expression
to . Y_ma e of their being together is to t~lk :ir ' w ere the only use Ll-ie membe~s of a
'1/here is there room for any genume mterhuman life? een 1 e
two . . . " prmc1p_1e of existence what in Chekh0; -~~st ,mother. !3ui it is Sartre v.-ho has raised
What~ver the mt';aning of the word ;truth ' may be in other reahns · tho . I~ shut ~p m himself. Sa;·t.re iegards the ~;1 bappears as the denciency 0f a perse,;, w110
· h I • m ,.., mterhum
realm it means that men comnmmcate t emse ves to one another as wh t th an simply impassabie. 'For him it is i . wa s et"1ten the partners in a conversation ~-
· th th h.
not depend on one saymg to e-0 .. er everyt mg that occurs to him but only
. a. ey are. It does
h. 1 . 011!y with himself and his own aF.a:esv1tfahb1~ hu,nan_ destiny that a man has directly. to
not m1·ne,. t'Here IS
· no •<lirect rdiitio
' ' · ·the inner
d~
no St:";iiing creep m· between h.1mseIf an d the ot her. It does not depend' on' one• on ts etting
Iett·mg h'1mself
- h .existence of •h • e oth er is· v.11s own c0ncrnr
-- · h. · t · · ·
clearest expression of the wretche; ;~lis~1eo~tlte:; nor can ther~ be. This is p~rl,aps th~
g o before another,
. . but on !.IS grar,tmg .o tne man to whom he communicates h:
. f h ,. ~ . . ..
. ~
. umseu u shart:
in his being. This .1s a questwn o1 t e autu..,ntJc1ty of the i11terhuman ' and whe le
. t.h.lS IS
. - as the un~hangeable nature of Homo sa ie ~ -de~ man, which re_gar<ls degeneration
' b . +'
b::: folliid, neither 1s the uman e ement 1tsel, aut entic.
h . uOt tc aHey as his primal fat.! and which b ~ ns ~no ,he misfortune of havmg run into l blind

lheiefore, as we begjn to rei.:ogniz~ the _cr:isis of man as the crisis sf what is between
man and man, we must ~ee the concept of upngntness fr?ru the thin mo:-alistic tones which
romanticism. He who r:all kn
I
of free giving between a:d ;~:~ ·:wt:
i., ran s tv..,ry thoug?t of a break-through as reacfonary

our ~enera~1un h9.s lost the way of true freedom,

great knowledge of this kine! pra:ti;/1~ · !°selr, by V~Je oftht demand implicit iil every
cling to it and iet i~ t3ke its tone _fro?'1 th~ concept of b~dily u~ri,:>;htncss. If a presupppsition did it-and not deoart from it,unti~ s ~1rec.ness--ev;n '. f ue were the orrly man on earth who
V

of human life in pnmeval tunes is given m mans walkmg 11pnght, the fu!fiilrnent of human
lite can only come tbrough_the soul's w_alking upright, through the great uprightness which
is n0t tempted by any seemmg because 1t has conquered a!l semblance.
Bu~ one. may ask, what if a inan b1 his natm-e make~ hi,;; life subservient tu the images
which he produces in other~? ~an ~e, m such a case, still become a man living from his
l:iP,i:-:g, can be escape from his n~ture.
The widespread tendency tQ live from the recurrent impression one makes instead
of from the steadiness nf one '~ being is not a 'nature,, It originates, in fact, on the other
side r interhuman life itself, m men's dependence upon one another. It is no light thing
0
tn be confirmed in one 's being by others, and seeming dc1.:eptively offers itself as help in
this. To yield to seeming is man's esstLJi:i_al co~ard!ce, t? ~esist it is his essent!al courage.
But this is not an inexorable sta~e of affarrs which IS as ~t IS ~nd must so remam. One can
struggle to come to oneself-that IS, to COflle t<?, com,id_~~9~}U,bemg. One struggles, now more
successfully now le~s, but never in vain; even whe..n:ondhinks he is defeated. One must at
times pay d~ly for life lived from the being; but it is never _too clear. Yet is there not bad
being do wi:-eds not grow everywhere? I have never known a young person who seemed
tomt irretrievably bad. Later indeed it becomes more and mor~ ~iflicult to peµet~ate the
increasingly tough layer whi~h has settl;d down o~ ~ man's being. J:hus th_er~ anse~ the
false perspective otthe seemmgly fixed -nature' which cannot be overcome. It 1s_false, the
foreground is deceitful; man as man can be redeemed.
Again we see Peter and Paul before us surrounded by the. ghosts of the semblances. A
ghost can be exorcized. Let us imagine that these twofin<l it more and more repellent to ~e
representP.d by gbos~. In each of the~ the ~ill is stirred and strengthened to be_ confinned m
their being as what ti11::y re~lly are ano notbmg else. We see the forces of real hfe ~t work as
they drive out the ghosts, till the semblance vanishes and the depths of personal hfe call to
one another.
own suppresst:d longing. .. i co crs are struc with fear, aud hear in his voice of the1r
_ The chief presupposi~ion for the rise of genuine dialogue is that eact shoulci regard his
p~rt~lr~ as the very one ~e is. I bec~me a~are of him, ~war~ that he is different, essentially
diff'--·~nt_,fro_m~yself, !~. th~ definite, .umque way which 1s peculiar to him, and I accept
~horn I um:. s,.,e, ~o that ~n rull earnestne.ss I can direct whi:it I say to him iis the person he
,.,. Perhaps fr?m rune to time I ~ust offer strict opposition to his view about tht: st.bject of
o~ c.onversatio~. Bu! I acc~pt ~1s person, the personal bearer of a conviction, in his defi..nitc
bemg out of :'~ch his conv~c~on has grown-even though I must tr; to show, bit by bit, the
~rongness o, rh1s very ~onv1chon. I affirm the person I struggle with: I struggle with him as
his partner, !·confirm him as creature and as creation, I confirin him who is oppo~ed to me
as him who is over against me. It is true that it now depends on. the other whether genuine
dialogue, mutuality in speech arises between us. But if I thus give to the other who confronts
me his legitimate standing as a man with whom I am ready to enter into dialogue, then I may
trust himand suppose him to be also ready to deal with ~e as hi~ p~"tner. ,.• -
But what does it mean to be 'aware' of a man in the exact serisein which I use the word?
To be·aware of a thing or a being means, in quite general terms, to experience it as a whole
and yet at the saine time-\\·ithout reduction ?r abs~ction, in all its conc~teness. But _a ma~.
· although he exists as a living being among hvmg bemgs ~d even as a th~g among things, 1s
nevertheless something categorically different bm all th:~g_s and_all bemgs. A man cann~t
ieally be grnsped except an the basis af_t~e gi~ of the spmt which belo?~s to man alo'..e
11-things the spirit as shariniz dem1vely m the personal hfe of the livmg ~an, ~at 1s,
amon~ ~ . ' . " , "n To ~ aware of a man, therefore, meiills m particular
the spmt which determm ~s ti1c perso . detemfr'·"d by the spirit· it means to perceive the
to perceive his wholeness as a person .. ~ t·on and atti,tude with the recognizable
. h' h t mps his every utterance ac 1 , h
dynamic centre w 1c s a
sign of uniqueness: Such an awarenesra:f
is the sepanited obJect of my contemp t
o:::!~n
. . ''ble however if and so long as the ot er
~bservatio~, for this w~oleness an~ its
templation or observation. It is only possible
centre do not let them~dves be known .~ ~~n ther that is when he becomes present to me.
when I step into an elemental ~elat!on w,t_ 1 e ose a~'pers~nal making present.'
Hence I designate awareness m this specia sen ,

?17
 •" I " ' ) V I IVJi.tf1

The perception
. of.one, 's, fellow
... , 111an as a ,vhole , as a unity, . and . . . Phil osophy of Man
ncss unity, and un1quem ~~ ,ll c only partly developed a . .
wI1Olc , . . , s 1s usuallydSthunique- even
. if his
. ur time by almost cvcryt 1rn1g t11at 1s commonly understo d . . ~ e case- 1s opposed in himself
111 0
.me there prcdomina: :::s an analytical, r..:ductivc ·ird dero . as s1pe1,;ifically modem In lhe other as the .right , .. .B_ecause ·it is · h ·
t e nght, it· must also be alive in the microcosm of
our 1, . , -I ,, , iv1ng ook be· · . , as one poss1b1hty. The other need only be opened out in this ,._.,tential,·ty of 1,1s·
.h,·s 'ook is analyt1ca1, or rat 1cr psc:1do analytica l siiice •. t ,ween man and m"reover
~ . , •h · out takes place not essentially by teaching but
" ts opening .-~by meetin" ··by,
man. 1 · ' " reals tbc wh 0 I •
ex1stent1al commtmica · 11·~n 1-.,,el•. ween someone: that 1• s •m actual being and someone that" 'is in
ether and thercfvrc ab le to be taken apart- not Oil iy the so- . 11 d · _e being as
pu t tog . . 'ti . b I ca e u11cow ~ h'
·· ~roress of becon,mg. _rhe first way ha, been most powerfuliy developed in the rez.!m or
0
. cccss iblc to rciat1 ve obJcc t1 ca l1011, ut a so the psychic strea m .1• 1f · ..,--ious w 1ch
is a b' ,,.. 1-1 .. , k . . . , ~c ' wh1r.h can 11 " .. pr -paganda, the S"'Cond m that of educal;'rn.
. fa r. I be gra~ped as an o ~( _t. 11 s ,00 1s a I edu ct1 vP. one becaus 1 .t t ·· . Ve, ,
m ,' · ·I d b I · e 1ies to con'ract ti
manifold pe1 son, w!io, is n0un s ie y tic mwroco~.mic richness of the po~sihk , 1(' . The propagandis! l have in mind, who irnp0,es himself, is not in the le2.:;t concerned
s
J1
chematicallv surveya0k and recu rrent stn,ctures. And thi s look is a de .
.. . I ' I h ,
- suppC'ses ,t clln grasp ,v 12. ll man 1as eco,11e, or even 1s becommg in
• 1 . .
. .
, lo some
m, ing one bec!luse
• gene t'11,,; fiormul~e
I w!t_h the persi:,n whom he. desiies to influence. as a ptrson; various ind;vitiual qu~li,:es art
01 !mportance only ir. so far as he can exploit them to wm the other qnrl ,nust get to ¼,uw

them fc~ this_purpose. ln his iildi,ference to everything personal the propagandist goes a
and it thinks that even t,1e dynamic ce:i!ra pr111c1ple of the individual in this b . "'
. I . "' A ffi . ; b . . . ecommg can , . _St_!b~!anttal distance.beyond the party for which he works. For tile party, persons ;r1 their
b e n::presented by
0
a oenera conce 1.,.. n e .01 t .s emg
.. _ ,. maoe toduy rad,1,;ally to d t
es roy the . , ·
difference are of significan1,;e bec:-l\::sc each can be: u~ed according to his special qualities in a
mrtery between _man a~d man. T1,e persona 11 11e, t.. e ever near rnystery, once the source of
thc stillest enthusiasms, 1s k veled down.
What I 11 ave just said 1s not ar, attack on th':! amilytical method of tht: human science"
tI· particular function. l, is true that the personal is cor.sidered only in respect of the specific use
to whir.hit can be put, but within these limits it is recognized in practice. To propagan6: as
such, on the other hand, individuai qualities are rather looked on as a burden, for prop:iganda
is concerned simply with more-more members, more adherent~ and an increasing extent uf
a method which is indisp.sns?.bk wherever it furthers knowledge of a phenomenon witho~~
impairing the essentially different k.r.:::iwiedge of its uniqc:f:' ness that transcends the valid support. Political methoJs, where they mle in extreme form.~ here:, 5i.rr!ply mean winning
circle of the !TieLhod. The science of man that makes use cf th P analytical methr,d must power over the other by depersonalizir?g him. This kind of propaganda enters upon cEffere!l.:
accordint=,ly always keen in •:iew th!! b:::iundary of such a contemplation, which stretches iike relations with force; it supplements it or replaces it, according to t!:;e need or the pr0.;pect;,, but
a !:oriwn arounL ;t. This duty makes ihe transposition of the method into life dubious; for it it is in the last analysis nothing but sublimated violence, which has become imperceptible as
such. It places men's souls under a pressure which .:.Hows the illusion of autonomy. Political
is excessively uifficu!t to see where the boundary is in life.
methods at their height mean the etlective abolition of the hwnan factor.
If we war.t to do today's work and prepare tumorrow's with clear sight, then we must Tne educator whom I have in mind lives in a world of individual3. a certain mnr.be,
develop in ourselvc:; and in tht next genf:'ration a gift which lives in man's inwardness of \l.1hom are always at any oile time committed to his care. He sees e:!ch of these ir:dividuals
as 3 Cindereil:!, one day to be a princess. Some call it intuiiic!l, bi that is not a wholly as in a position to becume a unique, single person, aud thus the bea.rer of a special task of
unambiguous conr~pt. ! prefer the name 'imagining t]1e re:il,' for in its essential being this existence which can be fulfilled through him ar.d through him alone. ~e sees every_personal
gift is not a looking at the other, but a bold swinging-demanding the most intensive stirring life as engaoed iii such a processofactua!ization, and he kuows frorr. his own ex-peneuce ~at
of one'~being-into the life of the othe. This is the nature of all genuine imagining, only that the forces ;aking for actualization are all the time involved in a mic_r~oS!Ilic struggle .W1~
here the realm of rny aciion is not the all-possible, but the particub real person who confronts counterforces. He has come to sec himself as a helper of the actual1?1n~ force~. He knows
me, whom I can attempt to ~ah:e present to myself just in this way, and not otherwise; in these forces; they have shaped and they still shape him. Now he puts ~s ix:rson sha~d by
his wholeness, ur.ity, and uniqueness, and with his dynamic centre which realizes .all thef:e them at their disposal for a new struggle and a new work. H~ cannot ~Vlsh to !!"!'°Se himse~
things ever anew. for he believes in the dI,~ct <?f the actualizi~tforces, that 1s, he -~~~ev~ that m every m
Let it be said again that all this can only take place in a.living partnership, that is, when
wliai"ts is
'right 'established in a single and uniquely personal way. No oteJ w~yt ~ar 15
~;
imposed o-n a man, but anoi.her way, that of the educa~or, may and muS t un ol w a ng '
I stand in a common situaiion with the other and expose myself vitally to his share in the
as in this case it struggles for achievement, and help it to develop. . .
si_tuation as really his .share. It is true ~at my basic attitude can remain unanswered, and the . • . . 1- d t really believe even m his own cause,
d~alogue c?.t1die in seed. But if mutuality stirs, then ihe
interhuman blossoms into genuine The propagandist, who unposes himse t, oes no
· . • · ffi tn .th t h's spec·1al methods whose
wn power wt ou 1 •
dialogue. · . · · , .. for he does not trust it to attam its e ec o 1 ~ ~ iidvertisement. The educator who unfolds
symbols are the loudspeaker ~d the televi~t~n ca tered itself, and still scatters itself,
what is there believes m the pnmal, powei '' hich ha_s s . th man in the. speciai form of that
IMPOSITION AND UNFOLDING . . d that ·t n,::iy gr0w up m eac . . . . .
in all human bemgs m ur er • • .. h t only that help which 1s given m
. . 1 have refe:1'ed to two things which impede the gr0wth of life between men: the He is confident that this growth nc~ds at eac momen
invasion of seemmg a d th 1· d • · · ·d man. . . d t upply that help.
plainer than the other~ n . e ?a ~qu?.cy of perceptwn. We are now fac~d with a th!r , meeting, and that he is C,l11e o ~ ,· . tt'nctcs and their -relation to une
, and m this cnllcal hour more powerful and more dangerous than ever. .. t r of the two ba~ 1c a t I d r s
I have illustrated the cha.we e . . . les But wherever men have ea mg
There are two basic ways of ffi • . . . . . . . ely antithettca 1examp · d
the first a man tries to im os . a ecti_ng ~e~ m their ~1ews and thelf attitude ~o life. In another by means of two ex trem . d . bPfound in more or less egree.
unfi ld
way that the latter fee, " l e hi~self, his opirncn and his attitude, on the other m such a
•
with one anothe1, one or e
th other att1tu e is to ·
'
· . · g oneself on someone an
d helping someone to 0
b arrogant
only been freed by th •~nfle psychical result of the action to be his own irnsight which bas These two principles of imposm , nee and humility. A man can e ,
" e I uence In the db · ' ' . d • h """'pts such as arroga
to trnd and to further in th · f secon as1c way of affecting others. a man wishes should not be confuse wtt co .. ~~
e sou 1o the othe th d · .. · ·
r e 1spos1t1on toward what he has recognized
219
218
 Phil osophy or .,
. If ,.,an
. · vi·shing to impose h1mse on others, and it is not . Phi losoph y o f Man
without ' dh .. enough to b h
to he1p ,.~notht>r un fold. A,rogance
i.. - • an • •umd1ty are disposition
. s o f tI1c soe Iumbl e in order
.th " moral accent, \\·.,, 1e 1mposi11on and l1elpmg to un fio'd u , psychologi· he makes th •
facts w1 " . . ~ . are eve-i1t b ca 1 Eve c contribution of his sni rit . . .
h logical fo~ ts which pomt lo an ontology. the Clltolog" of t! . s etween men
ant ropo J 1e mterhuman , 'th/y rnh e:1 of great integrity are nnder th:1_t~o•1_t redhuct1on and without shifting his ground
ave to say' R 11 • h I us1 on t at they are not bo d t ·
In th e 11,oral rP.alm Kant
.
expressed the essential principle ti
d mc,e Iy as a means but alwa)'S iat
·
one 'st, 11 what I have to say ·3 t ~n;:~c\~ea\faithfulnc~s which is the climat/~f g~n~i~:~~~i~:;
must never •b·' thought of. ana. treate . ' · a t I he sameet · ow rnan to be uttereci, and I must not kee eit::i:y has m_me the character nf ,omcthing t~at wishe~
. d ndent ei ,J Tiie nnnc;ple :s e\pressed as a;i ·ought ' which •·s ~ . . •rne as an
m epe .· · . .· . , ·h° . , . • 11slaH1 t!d b th ; sign which •ndicates that it beltn s t , keep ii m myself. It bears form<: th.: unmi,ta~ablc
. h . n divun,. My pomt of , 1e\\ , ., .. 1ch 1s near "' Kant s m its e . Y e ,dea word gem:ine!v exist< i·t mL1st b g. o the common \1fe of the v.,.>rd. Where the dia\,rica·1
ot uma . ' J . ,. , . h !· .. sse:u1al featur h bac k ·is the exact ' opnnsite
", e given lls ri ght bY keepmg · nothing back. To kee- nothin" "'
source :uid goal. It 1s concemeu \\ 1t t 1t' presuppositions of the . t h
ano th er . . : 1 . , . . m er u:n~ nes,Mas •.,v ha,. 1 •r.:1.ve to say' , of unreserved , p~ech E . ,.. d .~ "
.. · ts anthropolo!!ically not m h!S ,s'J at10n. 1.mt 1:1 me completeness of the_ . · an A d f · · ver, t .. mg cper,ds on the le"Jtimacy of
e,-1S ~ . . be l . .e 1ation bet\"ae . t , . n o course I n,ust also be . t . . . . ,,
man and man: what human1!)1 ;s ca~ :- proper Y grasped only m yital reciprocity F ': n mo s~o..:en word what I have to sa . in er.. to ic11se i::lo an inner ,,..Qrd and t!-.~r.
roper existence of the intcrhurnan 1t 1s nec~ssary, as I have shown, that the scmbl. or ,he ~peak !S both nature :.mr\ wo k ~/t t~1s ,nomcn t but do n01_yet posses~ as s~ech. T,:,
l l appears dialogica\lv . th r \some, mg ,hat ~ ow~ .:nd sometlimg that ;s made, and where
p
iniervene to spoil. the re.anon
i .
of persou , a'' be mo,., ro persona I i...•Jemg.
• I t ;s
. further necess ance not
of the two. , , m e c trnate of great fatthfumess, it has to fulfill e·:er anew the unity
1 have also shown. th~! eac~ one ,.,,~s and maJ:es pres~nt the o_ther in_ iiis personal ~•n;~
Th:it neither should wish to :mpo_:.e himself o~ the other is the th1rd bas1r presuµp osition of AssociatPd with th. . h . r
the atmo h .. , . ts is t at overr:ommg o, semblance to which I iiave referred. In
the inte-rhurn::..,. Thcst: presuppo~1uons do .1ot include the d~rna~d that one shouid influence s eak si eie of genuine dialogue, he who is ruled by th~ thcaght of his own effpct as the
t.iic other i.u his !iilfolding; thi~ is, however, an ekment that 1s su!tect io lead to a highf:'r stage t P t er? what h~ has to speak, has a destrn,::tive effect. If iilStead of what has to said \ be
of the interbman. ? °bnng att~Hlion tc rny I, I h<1ve irrevocably miscarried wh?t ! had to say· it enter- the
l•ta1cgue a< a 'a1lure a-id th d" f ·1 . . , ,
~ •. e, 1... _ogue 1s ~ ~1 _ure. Bec~use gen\!t~e d1::k,~Je is en ontological
0 \ • •

That the.e resides in e·:1::ry man the possibility of f!tta ining a:.:theutic.human existence
in the spxial wa, pec:iliar to him can be grasped in the Aristotelian image of ente1echy, innate
self-realization; bui one must note that it is an entelec~y- of t~e ~ork uf creation. It wonld
be mistaken to speak here of individuatio!l :!!one. Ind1V1duai1on 1s on~y the indispensable
person11 stamp of all reali.zatio;:; of hW?an ex1s~er.ce_. The s:lf as s~ch 1s_not ~ltimatel~ the
essenti~, but the mearlli,g of h~'Ilan ex1st~nce g1v~n m creRt1on agam/nd agam fulfils 1ts~lf
II·
as self. The help that men give each other m bec?mmg a se!f le:ids the _.:fe betwe~.1 me.1 to 1ts
height. Tne dynE!ic glory c,f the _being of man 1~ first bodily pre~e,nt '.n the re_latJon_between
two men each c,f wholli lil meanmg the other aiso means the h1g11e:st to which this person
is called, and serves the self-realization of this human lite as one true to creation without
wishing to impose on the other anything of his own realization.
, , -.'
~pnere ~ht ich is constituted oy the authent1c1ty of bemg, eYcry 1:-wasion uf ~::;-;iblanct: ;nust
uamage 1.•
But w~ere th~ di~_logue is fulfilled in :ts being, between j.Jartners who b::tve turned to
one anothP.r m truth, who exvress themselves without reserve and are free of the desire for
semblance, there is brought into being a memor:1.ble common fruitfulness which is to be
a,
found nowhere else. At such times, each time, the word arises in a substantial way betwee,,
men who have _been seized in their depths and opened out by the dynamic 0f <1l..l elemental
togetherness. The interhuman •Jpens out what otherwi5e remair.s unops:,1ed.
This phenomenon is indeed well known in dialogue between two persons; but 1have
also somt:times experienced it ir. a dialogue in which several have uiken part.
About Easter of 1914 there met a grc'..!p consisting of representatives of se-,-eral European

GENUINE DIALOGUE
I
I •' -
nations for a threP--day discu~sion that was intended to be ?reliminary to ~e~ talks.1W~
wanted to discuss together how the c~tastrophe, which we all believed w:1s 1rnmment, coulci
be avoided. Without qur having agreed beforehanu on any '.:crt ofmQ<lali~es for_our.~ all
We must now summarize and clarify the marks of gen~ine di~l~~e: the presuppositions of genuine dialogue were fulfilled. From the first hour immediacy re~gned
In genuine dialogue the turning to the partner takes place in all truth, that is, it ·is 1 between all of \IS, some of whom had just got to know one anoth~r_; everyone ~poke with an
a turning of the being. Every speaker 'means' the partner or partners to whom h~ turns unheard-of unreserved, md clearly not a single one of the P3:ffir,1pants ~as m bondag:~:
as this personal existence. To 'mean ' someone in this connection,. is at the same time to semblance. In respect of its purpose the meeting must be des~nbed as a_failure (thou?h e .
now in my heart it is still not a certainly that it had to be a failure); the uon~ of te s,tu~t,o~
exercise that degree of making preseqt which is·possible to the speaker at the moment. Tlie
experiencing senses and the imagining ot the real which completes the findings of the serises was that we arranged the final ·discussion for the ~iddle ?f A;gus;,,::; ~o~ t~e ~::i;
to
work together make the other present as a whole and as a unique being, as the person that events the group was soon broken up. Ne~ertheless, m ~e time at o
participants doubted that he shared in a tuumph of the 111terhurnan.
' -
· .. d
he is. But the s;>eaker docs not merely pcrr:eive the one who is present to him in thi~ way; he
receives him as his partner, and that means that he confirms this other being; so far as it ·is
, ,
One more point must be nott> .
d Of e
it is not necessary for all who are Jotne
cours h k silent can on occasion be soecially
for him to confirm. The true turning of his person to the other includes this confinnation, this . d' 1 tually to speak: those w o eep . f n
in a genume ia ogue ac . . , withdraw when the course of the c~n..-ersa io
accep~ce. Of course, su::h 2 confumation does not mean ;ipproval; bi.It no matte1 in what I important. But each must be detemuned not to No one of course; can know m advance
am agamst the other, by accepting him as my partner in genuine dialogue I have affinned 11s makes it proper for him to say what he has to say. • .
a person. 1··
. . . •Dialo e' in Between Man and .~f::n,
. . Further, if genuine dialogue is to arise, everyone who takes part in it must bring himself I have set down elsewhere an episode from this meeting. See my essay gu
:to 1
~· And that also ~eans that he must be willing on each o~casion to say what is really in especially pp. 4-6.
is mmd about thi! sub3ect of the conversation. And that me:'.ns further that on each occasion
221
 . dia logue cannot. be arranged
ay· genuine b d beforelrnnd
. d . It has indeed
1 . is thac he has cos ' th e be inning, but nothmg can e etem1111t: • the course is of
w/w
•rs t '. order in itself
iJasic from hat tlg1ey have
d·sco·:erw , to say• only when they catch the call of the spirit .
1
c~c spirit, a,,J. some matter
But it 1s also a
'
of cou rse
bl -
. that all the participants,
·atis4",ing the
. . Wi th0ut
presuppositions o
f exception
.
genume
. . must ue
dialogue and
APHENOMENOLOGY OFLOVE·
hn th are capa e o1 s 'J . I d . .
sue ature that ey
Th · genuineness
. of •he
· dial0gue 1s cal.e 111 ques!Ion as soon. as even a b-y Manuel 8. D:,, Jr.
are ready to do so. e nt are felt oy thei,1selvcs and by the others as not be: ng expected
small number of those
part. pr_~seh a s tate
. of affairs car. !ead to very serious problems.
~
, active Sue
w take ,wyd &..:. ,.i v·norr:
. . 1 zccoun 1 one of the most consideraulc men of our. ae;e. He was a _ ~hat is l_cwe'i The question has been asked since the time or Plato, n : un\y by
~'. ~-essional philos_ophei:, but by pt:ople fro::i '.!II walks of life. Much has a\re;:.jy0 bee:1
l ha a i.ien ... _ · ,,;d- he loved it; his gen'linen~ss as a speake_r was evident. But o~ce
>\ • 1tte:- on tlus subJec~! a;1swers to the question have been given "nd many ~ore questions
master of conversanon_-_ . , 1.th two friends and with the thret: wive:,, and a couversat1ou
posed, and_Yet_the r~u.ity of lovo: has nut been exhausted. The ve:y fa-::t th2t th( :; question of
it happened~ that _he_~as sitttngth: women were clearly not joining, although their presence
· 111 c'- by ,ts nat'.rre -~ h . ' d. d 1 '.v~at love 1s still be~r,¥ asked si:em~ to show that love is par. ar.d parcel or !!12.!1 '~ \ife. an~ a
2rose m w n . ,., ce The conversation among t_ e men soo~ aeve1op~ mto a ue phllosophy ·of man is tnt:omplete wtthout a philo~ophy cf love, of man as loving.
in fact had a Ogreilt mfk-il ·,1- ·thi·ra.., Th"' other 'duelist,' also a friend of m!lle, was of a
f tl-em 1] was u,e · - . b' · · Many of us have the tendency to equate love with .Or':iance. Tne world "love" rings a
between two ' ~as a man of tnie conversation, but given more to o _:ective fairness
nob!'! nature, he too . 11• t, . ·cl a stranger to aD.y ccntrnversy. The friend whom I have sweet melody to the ears, brings to the imagination the image of two lovers whispe,in1> swi:et
th ,.,y of the u1te ec an . d • •h . t . nothings to each other in the park or on the telephone, unmindful of the r~ of the ,;orld as
than to
,, d e . •tpr of• conversl!t1on
P·- - d'd 1 ·~peak with his usual composure
d an s,reng, , ou he if only they matter and exist at all. "Love is :i 1-nany splcndcred thing,•· so the soc.g goes.
ca,1e a m~he, fought,
scintillated, . he tr.Jc.•mol · 1ed • The dialogue was c! ~stroye . .
On the other hand, love is pictured many times as au 2:.:l nf posses.smg or being
possessed by another pe1son. People fight and struggie in the uame oflovo:. "l \ove you" has
come to mean "You are mine" and "I want you to do the things I want,! want you to be what
Iwant
wanttoyou to be."
me." · Or else, it has r,ome to mean, "1 am yours, and you can do whatever you

. F_or many young people, luvt: has become synonymous v.-ith sex_ To kve another
means to be passionately attracted to her and to bring her to bed wiih ~e. This equaticn vf
love with sex has led to the idea thar friencii.hip ~s not love, that when two lovers break up,
they may settle down for friendship as if friendship were inferior to love.
· People say, "love is blind and lovers do nm see." This has come to mean that to love
is to be attracted to ihe good qualities of the other. Sometimes this is E"arne.: to the extreme
of attributing attrnctive qualities to the ether even if they are not there. Love has come to be
equated with admiration.

· Erich Fromm iil his famous book The Art of Loving1 mentions the fact_that the popul~
notion Gf love at present is •·failing i~ love.a People _hav~_the _misc~nception t?at ~efbs
nothing to ·be learned l!Qout-love, that love hits a man like hgh~g. Ett,her you ~e struc ~
the arrow of Cupid or you ~re not. He attributes this popular nob.on of i.:ive to three reasons.
The emphasis on being·-loved rather than on loving. This is evident in the many ~o~
l, 1. written and sold on "how to win friends and mfluence
· peop1-'-,'"'how to be attractive ,
"b.0w to have sex appeal," etc:- . ·

The emphasis on the object loved ra~~r ~ \ d ,, "the ideal wide." And it seems
· .. . . . th n the faculty of loving. People talk of
2.
the ''ideal girl," "the ideal boy," "the l ea1 us an ' ~ th~ markel.
the right object to love follows the sa.ine trend as the fad . .

3.
. ..
The confusion between thhe 1~1!1t~lls;at~i~fg ~f
in love. People' mistal<.e t e m1 ia iee
f tr
l~fa~a~ion
·., l ve and the pennanent standmg-
as love. Two people finding

' . . .. . ublished ::1 Rogue J. Femo . . (ed). Mugpalcatan (Quezon

. ls, SJ
• This essay was originahy wntten i_n F~hpm~~~eo de Manila University, 1999), P_P-56-79.
City: Offa:e of Research and Publtcatlon, A : H r 1956), pp.l ..4.
Erick Fromm, The Art of Loving, (New York. arpe , -
222