Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Grade 11: Quarter 2: Module 2
First Edition, 2020
Copyright © 2020
La Union Schools Division
Region I
All rights reserved. No part of this module may be reproduced in any form without
written permission from the copyright owners.
ii
2
Introduction to the
Philosophy of the Human
Person
Quarter 2: Module 2
3
ii
Target
After going through this lesson and learning materials you are expected to:
a. Realize that intersubjectivity requires accepting differences and not
imposing on others;
b. Explain that authentic dialogue means accepting others even if they are
different from themselves; and
c. Performs activities that demonstrate an appreciation for the talents of
persons with disabilities and those from the underprivileged sectors of
society.
4
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?
5
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.
6
Discover
You have already an idea on the lesson you will learn due to the activity you
had. The next step is you read and analyze the meaning of Intersubjectivity so
that you will understand why we have to use it in understanding and
appreciating others.
7
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.
8
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
9
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)
10
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made
And the sign flashed out its warming
And the words that it was forming
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
11
To be, to exist in a human way, is to be with. Intersubjectivity is thus a
state in which I recognize my being as a being-with-others. My life is not human if
it is centered on itself. Life becomes human, that is, it is humanized, as soon as I
de-center myself from myself, when the center of my life is on the welfare of
another. “Human living” is “living of something other than itself”.
Activity 3: Answer Me
Directions: Answer the following. Write your answer in a separate sheet of paper.
1. Translate the following into your mother tongue:
3. Between hearing and listening, talking and speaking, which do you prefer? Why?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
4. Can you say that the people described in “The Sound of Silence” are people who
are “so near yet so far”? Why or why not?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
12
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
13
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
14
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.
15
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.
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.
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
16
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,
17
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.
18
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
I-It relationship
In contrast, to realm of meeting and dialog, Buber cites I-It relationship. I-It
relationship is a person to thing, subject to object that is merely experiencing and
using; lacking directedness and mutuality (feeling, knowing, and acting)
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”.
19
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.
20
Activity 4
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.
21
Explore
Activity 5
4. Is it possible to lie to your parents while looking at them straight in the face?
What do you think of people who are able to do that?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
22
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 6
23
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
24
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.
25
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:
1. We sometimes hear the phrase “condemned without trial.” Does this imply
absence of authentic dialogue? Explain.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
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.
26
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.
27
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
28
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
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)
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.
29
30
Post Test
Answer Key
1. D
2. B
3. A
4. C
5. B
6. D
7. D
8. D
9. B
10. D
11. D
12. D
13. A
14. B
15. D
Key Answer
References
Books
Website:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-6086-
2_9182
https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/
31