Subject: PHILO-I Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY

Quarter: 2 Week: 4
MODULE 4 Page 1 of 8
I. A. Objective
1. Explain that authentic dialogue means accepting others even if they are different from
others.
2. Appreciate the talents of persons with disabilities and those who the underprivileged
sectors of society and their contributions to society.
3. Performs activities that demonstrate an appreciation for the talents of persons with
disabilities and those from the underprivileged sectors of society

B. Student’s biweekly learning goals Estimated Time to finish

1. Read the Verse for the Week and its discussion guide. 30 mins.
2. Accomplish the motivational activity. 30 mins.
3. Read and understand the lesson content. 1 hour & 30 mins.
4. Accomplish the grade activity 1 hrs.
5. Accomplish the Learning Gains. 30 mins.

1. Read the Verse of the Week from FBC official Facebook page and Meditate on it.
2. Motivational Activity.Watch a short video clips using this link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG3pQp6HoQM

Lesson Content

Defining Intersubjectivity: Gabriel Marcel

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.
Each passenger is concerned with her bag (vigilant against pickpockets), his destination, her
fare and his sukli. Much like in the song, "people talking without speaking, people hearing
without listening".

To be with the other is to open myself to the 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 that can be manipulated, any treatment of the 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.
To-be-is-to-be-with
The word "living" is a general term that covers plant, animal and human life. The medical
Subject: PHILO-I Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Quarter: 2 Week: 4
MODULE 4 Page 2 of 8
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. From a medical point of view, a doctor can
say that one is alive by looking at the vital signs of living. 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. A father whose
daughter dies of leukemia would say that he feels just as dead even while he breathes and all.
A girl who loses a friend may be functioning physiologically, but feels as if time has stood
still. Each one of us may have had a similar experience we can speak of. 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
Marcel 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 captured 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).

For Marcel,we find that meaning outside of our selves -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 hoard or corrupt resources
are people who are focused only on their own sustenance. 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.
Authentic Dialogue means accepting others who have Disabilities
Authentic Dialogue with persons who are developmentally disabled explodes this myth,
challenging mental health professionals and families to engage in genuine dialogue with
people who are developmentally disabled. Rather than avoiding painful topics, such as
awareness of the loss of a normal life, it is possible to confront those difficult and emotive
issues within a therapeutic environment.

Levinas: My fellow subject, who resists totalization

Totalization of the Other

We need to further reflect on the meaning of “being-with” or what it means to be in relation

with other subjects. Emmanuel Levinas, a contemporary and friend of Marcel, takes up a
deeper reflection on the relationship between the self and the other (focused on as
Other).Levinas points out that the Other is
“rigorously other,” that is, far more radically different than we would normally appreciate and
accept in our everyday lives (Levinas, 1969:39). The default perspective we adopt in our
Subject: PHILO-I Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Quarter: 2 Week: 4
MODULE 4 Page 3 of 8
everyday thinking is that the others would think, feel, react, perceive things, the way we do.
This natural expectation becomes more apparent when it is not met, that is, when we get
frustrated over people who do not understand what we say, nor share in our feelings, or react
very differently. When Levinas emphasizes on the "otherness" of the other, he is asking us to
question and examine this expectation we have of others.

Totalization occurs whenever I limit the other to a set of rational categories, be they racial,
sexual, or otherwise. I totalize the other when I claim I already know who he is before he can
even speak to us. Totalization is a denial of the other's difference, "the denial of the otherness
of the other". It is when I refuse to see that the other person can be someone else apart from
what I expect him to be
What does it mean to say that one is "at home"? A home, as we know it, is a place where we
feel comfortable, where we can be in our most unpretentious state. Notice how you do not put
much effort in wearing nice clothes or shoes when you are at home. Notice how you can just
sit, talk and move around without being concerned about what others would say when you are
at home.
The comfort we feel in our homes is due to the familiarity we have developed within the
space and among the people that surround us. The familiarity gives a sense of complacency.
Have you ever spent a night in a different place and found yourself unable to sleep? In
Filipino, we say 'namamahay', an experience of discomfort due to the newness, the
strangeness of the place. This is the kind of discomfort we feel when we come to grips with
the "otherness" of the other person. For Levinas, the other is "the Stranger who disturbs the
being at home with oneself" (Levinas, 1969:39). The assumption of sameness is disturbed
by a genuine encounter with another person. One might ask,“But why do I feel comfortable
with my friends and family?” From the perspective of intersubjective relations, the level of
comfort we experience with our immediate circle is due to the interactions that have become
routine over time. We have been with these people for so long that we somehow have
become “at home” with them.
Despite this experience of familiarity, however, Levinas asserts that the other remains
different from us. When parents are astonished over their child's reaction to them, or when
someone is disappointed with his/her friend's response-these feelings are but simple ways of
making us aware of our differences with others, which will never be effaced. Being aware of
this, we are thrown off from our sense of control when hit by this reality-“Over him I have no
power. He escapes my grasp...” (39).
"The Other remains infinitely transcendent, infinitely foreign" (Levinas, 194). Some
people boastfully claim that they thoroughly know their loved ones so well, as if they had a
special eye or ear that could see or hear through the minds of others, or watch them wherever
they are. This claim of full knowledge is not only delusional; it is also dangerous. First, it is
impossible to completely know another person. Not even mothers who have been with their
children from the womb can make this claim. A philosophical explanation for the
impossibility can be drawn from our discussion of the human person as an embodied spirit.
As this inextricable entwinement of limitation and possibility, the human person is a not a
fixed and self-enclosed entity, but a dynamic and moving individuality as it is constantly
opened up by possibilities. As the popular song in the musical The Sound of Music asks:
Subject: PHILO-I Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Quarter: 2 Week: 4
MODULE 4 Page 4 of 8
"How do you solve a problem like Maria? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? upon
the sand?" The answer is you cannot. We may be close enough to know who the other is, but
there will always be a distance between you and the other that can never be crossed. There
will always be something about the other that. “How do you keep a wave will escape you. He
or she is infinitely transcendent.
The word transcendent literally means above and beyond. A genuine encounter with another
person is an invitation to go beyond what you see, what is given. To claim that there .is
nothing beyond what you see and what you know of the other is to force them into your self-
made prison of expectations. It is to confine them within what is familiar to you. We have
said above that this is dangerous because this insistence does not allow us to hope for better
things about the other. It is to say that the other person is like an object, an unchanging piece
of wood that has no spirit.
Levinas tells us that the tendency to totalize the other person is more common because most
of us are afraid of uncertainty. We imprison our loved ones through our hovering presence
(stalking them or uncovering all their secrets from us) because we are afraid of the possibility
of losing them. We kill criminals right on the spot because we are afraid of the possibility of
being killed first. We avoid street kids as soon as we see them from a distance because we are
afraid of the possibility of being harassed. The fear of uncertainty leads to a strong tendency
to totalize. We are no different from the oppressive rule of a totalitarian leader. We have read
about the horrors of totalitarian rule in history. For instance, during the communist rule in
East Germany in the early part of 20th century, there was "at least one spy watching every 66
citizens!" (Koehler, 1999). Totalitarian rule rests on' the assurance that the state knows every
single move of its subjects through strict surveillance. It does not leave room for uncertainty,
does not allow anything hidden in the dark. The darknes of the unknown is a source of
instability for the absolute power. To live within totalitarian government is to be in constant
state of fear and paranoia.

The Power of the Face of a Person

History has shown us, however, that a totalitarian rule never lasts no matter how powerful it
may be. For Levinas, power over another person can never be absolute because of the
capacity of a person to resist it. One finds that resistance in the face of the other. "The face
resists possession, resists my powers. In its epiphany, in expression, the sensible, still
graspable turns into total resistance to the grasp" (Levinas, 198).
It will be difficult to completely exhaust one of the central concepts of Levinas' philosophical
reflections within this limited space. For our Photo by Socrates O. Paclibar purpose, we will
focus on the above passage from his magnum opus, Totality and Infinity. Whenever Levinas
refers to the "face," we should understand that he is not just referring to a part of our body,
but to the whole person. But why can he not simply refer to the person straight away? This is
because for Levinas, the face is not just like any part of a person's body. It plays a very
special role.

When we face another person, we are reminded that there will always be something
unknowable about them. We can never be complacent. The other person always has the
capacity to astonish us beyond our calculation. To get rid of this fear of uncertainty some
people resort to violence. That is why for totalitarian governments, the only way to ensure
Subject: PHILO-I Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Quarter: 2 Week: 4
MODULE 4 Page 5 of 8
that rulers stay in power is through the use of violence. Violence is what takes place when in
the face of the other, we refuse to see the person that bears it and force the other to fit into the
box of our expectations. Violence is what happens when we remain blind to the difference of
the other from us by pretending that they are faceless.
But there is an alternative to violence, which is to humbly accept the other as different
from us. In this recognition, we are able to hear the invitation from the other. One's encounter
with the other "promotes my freedom by arousing my goodness" (Levinas, 140). In other
words, the face of another not only tames my tendency for violence. It also invites me to do
good for that other person, to be generous, or to respond to their need. This is what happens
when we see a child's face. Not only do we realize that the other cannot just be treated as an
object, one is encouraged to open oneself to the other as someone would receive a stranger in
his/her home. Levinas describes this as an attitude of hospitality.A genuine encounter with
another person is an encounter in which we tame our tendency to overcome the other and
imprison him/her within our demands and expectations. It is an encounter in which we
receive the other despite his/her strangeness and difference. It is an encounter in which we
accept that the other will never be fully the same as we are and yet still be a person.

Being a neighbor to the other

A subtle form of "violence" we do to other people is when we reduce them into social
categories. A category is, a pre-conception amounting to a pre-judgment. Examples of these
categories we apply on others would be the category of social classes (elitista, jologs, conyo,
jejemon), or the labels we use to classify others (labels on race conditions - retard, OC, addict,
labels on derogative look on gender or sexuality bakla, malandi; labels on place of origin -
promdi, barbariotic, taga-bundok). For Reinhold Neibur, a category serves as a barrier that
prevents us from having a real personal encounter with another person. It makes us difficult to
see the person behind the label, and hear the message coming from the other, like a silent cry
for help.

Moral Humility
If we can never fully know the other person because they are infinitely transcendent, how can
possibly understand them? The common answer we always get is that we should try to "put
ourselves in the shoes of another person." This refers to the invitation to imagine ourselves in
the situation of others. By doing so, we would understand them more.
Iris Marion Young, however, argues that this common suggestion is problematic and can be
dangerous. It is problematic because no one can really claim to have access to the mind of
another person. No matter how familiar a person has become, you will never be able to fully
know what is on his mind. Just take a quick look at your relationships. Isn't it that many of
your quarrels with your family or your friends stem from misunderstandings – that you
assumed that this is what he thinks or feels and you react based on that assumption, or vice
versa? Isn't it that most of these quarrels only get fixed when both parties sit down and have a
calm conversation about what happened?

Misunderstandings mostly come from our hasty judgments and generalizations. Put in another
way, it comes from our arrogant thinking that other see things in the same way that we view
them. If you recall the elephant and the blind men from Lesson 1 of Chapter I, most of them
thought that their narrow perspective of the elephant was the one and only perspective. As we
Subject: PHILO-I Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Quarter: 2 Week: 4
MODULE 4 Page 6 of 8
moved forward in this course, we learned that as limited human beings, we can only strive for
the most complete understanding of things. Until we die, however, this perspective will never
be complete. Individuals are shaped by their histories and social context. No two persons
share a completely the same social position and individual history. As such, no two
persons can have the exact same experiences and from the same perspectives.
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.

Moral Humility
If we can never fully know the other person because they are infinitely transcendent, how can
possibly understand them? The common answer we always get is that we should try to "put
ourselves in the shoes of another person." This refers to the invitation to imagine ourselves in
the situation of others. By doing so, we would understand them more.
Iris Marion Young, however, argues that this common suggestion is problematic and can be
dangerous. It is problematic because no one can really claim to have access to the mind of
another person. No matter how familiar a person has become, you will never be able to fully
know what is on his mind. Just take a quick look at your relationships. Isn't it that many of
your quarrels with your family or your friends stem from misunderstandings – that you
assumed that this is what he thinks or feels and you react based on that assumption, or vice
versa? Isn't it that most of these quarrels only get fixed when both parties sit down and have a
calm conversation about what happened?

Misunderstandings mostly come from our hasty judgments and generalizations. Put in another
way, it comes from our arrogant thinking that other see things in the same way that we view
them. If you recall the elephant and the blind men from Lesson 1 of Chapter I, most of them
thought that their narrow perspective of the elephant was the one and only perspective. As we
moved forward in this course, we learned that as limited human beings, we can only strive for
the most complete understanding of things. Until we die, however, this perspective will never
be complete. Individuals are shaped by their histories
and social context. No two persons share a completely the same social position and
individual history. As such, no two persons can have the exact same experiences and
from the same perspectives.
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.
Subject: PHILO-I Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Quarter: 2 Week: 4
MODULE 4 Page 7 of 8
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. (ex. Saying to a friend whose mother died, "That is God's will.")

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 were you….,”would turn the conversation into
something about you, and not the person who needed listening to.

EVALUATION
Direction: Explain the meaning of the following terms or phrase in your own point of view.
Each item is worth 5 points. Write your answer in a one while yellow pad.
1. Totalization
2. Authentic-Dialogue
3. moral-Humility

ACTIVITY
Picture Analysis. Look for a picture of one person with disability (ies) or those from the
underprivileged sectors of society WITH NOTABLE TALENT. Include the person’s name
and if possible/available some of his demographics like his/her age, gender, and place of
origin. Describe the person’s talent and how he/she came to develop or had such talent.
Describe the hardships that the person experienced despite having a disability or coming from
an underprivileged section of the society. Share your appreciation of the person.
Mode of Submission: Do this in a short sized bond paper and paste the picture of the person
you have chosen. Include your essay below the picture. You may print this out rather than
cutting and pasting. Your response must not be below five sentences. There is no maximum
limit to the number of sentences as long as you can satisfactorily supply the instructions
above.

CRITERIA

content POINTS
Provision of a picture and a name 5 pts.
Subject: PHILO-I Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Quarter: 2 Week: 4
MODULE 4 Page 8 of 8
Appreciation of the person 10 pts.
content 15 pts.
TOTAL 30 points

Reference
Corpuz, B. B., Corpuz, R. A., Corpuz-Paclibar, M., & Paclibar, S. O. (2016). Introduction to the
Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon City: LORIMAR Publishing, Inc.