Lesson 6 – Intersubjectivity

Intersubjectivity
Introduction
 

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

In this essay, we will be illuminated by a more important kind of relationship anchored on the concept of “intersubjectivity” in
which “I” and the “others” are seen more as complementary to each other rather than just simply a means to some selfish ends.
Intersubjectivity is a kind of relationship which considered a subject-to-subject or person-to-person way of relating. Jurgen
Habermas’ Theory of Communicatice Action will inform us the authentic form of communication which would be instrumental
to the setting up of intersubjective relationship. MartinBuber’s I-Thou Relationship, on the other hand, explains the importance
of encountering the other as “a person”, a “You” in contrast to an object in order to assure authentic relationship. Lastly,
Emmanuel Levinas’ Face of the Other elucidates not so much on relationship but on our ethical duty to others as the basis of
relating with them. All of these theories will guide us in understanding that most problems in human relationship find its
solution on how we see, accept, and treat the “others”. Intersubjective relationship, therefore, aims in helping individuals grow
together as authentic human persons.

The Phenomenology of Intersubjective Relationship

 Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action

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

Jürgen Habermas, a known German sociologist and philosopher in the tradition of critical theory of the second half of the 20th
century, is perhaps best recognized for his theory on communicative rationality. In “What is Universal Pragmatics?” found in
his book Communication and the Evolution of Society, he identifies and reconstruct “universal conditions of possible
understanding [Verständigung]”(Habermas, 1979, p. 1). He, first, introduces various forms of action that human beings use like
conflict, competition, strategic action that facilitate understanding but he singled out “speech actions” for he believes that
speech acts (dialogue) were predominant means by which understanding is achieved. He formulated four tests, or validity
claims on comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness, and rightness that must occur in conversation to achieve mutual
understanding. Anyone, according to him, who engaged themselves in a speech act/dialogue has to fulfill the following: first,
both speaker and hearer must use comprehensible expressions in which they both understand; second, the speaker should use a
true proposition so that the hearer can share in the speaker’s knowledge;

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

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

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

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

Martin Buber’s I-Thou Relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While Buber’s gives more emphasis on reciprocal intersubjective relations where the “I” and the “Thou” achieved a more
complete authentic existence, Emmanuel Levinas, on the other hand, in the next lesson, focuses more on the “Other” as the
basis of relationship. This is another important point in intersubjective relationship in which the “Other” is given more
importance than the self.

Emmanuel Levinas’ Face of the Other

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

Though Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) is commonly known as a French philosopher, he was actually born in Russia, in
Kovno (now Kaunas), Lithuania in 1906 to a Jewish family rich in Jewish cultural traditions. At the event of World War I, the
Levinas’s family immigrated to France where Levinas became a citizen. Being a French citizen, he joined the French army
when World War II began. During the war, his French uniform saved him from deportation to the gas chambers when he was
captured by the Germans, while all his family were murdered by the Nazis. Levinas’ exposure to the barbarity of the Nazi was
instrumental to the creation of his 1961 book entitled Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority where he strives to bring
people to the meaning of life through heteronomous relation to the ‘Other’.

Levinas grounds his ethics in a criticism of Western philosophical tradition which subordinates the personal relation with
concrete person who is an existent to an impersonal relation with an abstract “Being” (Levinas, 1961/1979, p. 36). For instance,
whenever we deal with someone, we use the values and beliefs that we inherited from our society and used them as our basis in
relating with “others”. Certain times, we use them also as standard in which we judge “other’s” actions and character as good or
bad. For Levinas, these social values and beliefs are abstract “concept” that blurred our sight and hinder us in seeing, accepting,
and relating humanely with “others” for we give more importance to those concepts than to “concrete person” who deserves
more our attention. In relating with others, we also apply our own “analytical or judgemental 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.

Levinas offers lots of good insights for achieving authentic intersubjective relationship and, in a way complements what lacks in
Buber’s I-Thou relationship. First, Levinas’ ethics reminds us of our moral duty and infinite responsibility to people with
disabilities, the underprivileged in the society, and even to LGBT community whose weakness and vulnerability has always
been taken advantage by the society. In US, it is no longer uncommon to find members of LGBT community becoming victims
of verbal, physical, and psychological violence. In our country, it’s always part of everyday news that mostly poor people die
due to drugs or that crimes mostly are blamed to the marginalized in the society. Some groups of people with disabilities have
become a means for charitable institutions to gain financial support. It’s a clear indication that the “other” has become a means
for someone’s ends. Surprisingly, only few realize it and even have the courage to defend them, like the politicians who,
unfortunately, have some “string attached”, while most in the society are just indifferent. This, for Levinas, is not the right way.
We have to go beyond our self, our needs, our rights and demands and focus more on our duty to the “other”. We have to go
beyond our common school duty of having once a year “reach-out” program for those people, or organize activity for them, or
just join them in demonstration. Levinas reminds us to embrace the fact that our responsibility to “other” is personal (“mine
alone”). Hence, we should not wait for others to organize activities for us to join but we rather do it by our own and try to be
sincere and consistent in dealing with them. The vulnerable “others” are not necessarily the one in the street but sometime they
are simply our neighbours, members of our family, and even our class/school mates. Usually, the “other” does not actually need
“something” from us but only companionship, someone to talk to, someone who has the heart to listen.

Secondly, Levinas also reminds us that being ethical is being open for, prepared to, and impassioned with the radical difference
of the other. Our society has taught us what is moral and immoral, good and bad, right and wrong. They serve as standards of
living in order for us to live together harmoniously. However, Levinas is also correct in saying that they could also be
instruments for “uniform” behaviour, thinking, and living. It’s an undeniable fact that people are not the same and even science
confirms that each individual has its own unique DNA. This only proves that it is impossible that one rule or policy applies to
everyone where in fact we are different from each other. There should always be exemption to the rule. The rule is made for
people and not vice versa. It’s also unfair to human nature that the rule that was applied before should also be exactly the same
rule, without modification, that should be applied to people of modern times. People change in thinking, behaving, and in living.
Society’s rules and policies should adapt, adjust, and be open for change as human evolution constantly advances. Some social
norms and customs in the past were created due to certain situation which only implies that new situations require new or
modified norms and customs. The point of Levinas is that the “other” or the human person must first be given primacy before
any “abstract standard”. We live in the society with people who are different from our way of thinking, feeling, and even
behaving. They deserve respect and acceptance because, like us, they also have rights and dignity as human person as well as
being members of the society. Their differences are actually not a threat to harmonious living but serve more as the source of
dynamism in relationship.

Lastly, Levinas wants us to look at the reason why we give, care, and help the others. Human as we are, we always find
ourselves motivated to do good things for “others” when they appreciate the help we give and even return the favour to us. We
also are encouraged when we realize that our assistance has improved the life of the “others”. But what if the help is not return?
What if the assistance is not appreciated or does not bring improvement to “other’s” life? Should we stop helping? Should we
limit our giving? Levinas is clear that our responsibility to others is non-reciprocal. Reciprocity is not and should not be the
reason in fulfilling our responsibility to others for “reciprocity is his affair” (Levinas, 1961/1979, p. 95). Duty loses its sense
when we expect and demand from “other’s” appreciation, recognition, or return of favour. We give, help, assist because he/she
needs and no other reason. Romantically speaking, this is unconditional love, loving without condition and selfish intention.
Unfortunately, this is the hardest thing to do. Whenever we extend our help to another or even just to sit down to listen to
someone, there are often times selfish-interest, that is, we get at least something from what we do to “others”. Politicians as well
as those who are fond of public recognition are very good in this. “Donated by…” is almost seen in every town or villages and
even in church’s benches. It seems that “helping” for them is more for status quo rather than responsibility. Unfortunately, it is
also the common people who made them like that due to their unending request “for the improvement of the community”. This
kind of system has become part of people’s behaviour that in today’s time, it’s almost impossible to help without string
attached. Only when we learn to go beyond ourselves, our needs, our rights and start to focus on the plight of the “others” that,
perhaps, we could treat them fairly. However, it will need deep faith in God and genuine love for others to be able to fulfil an
extra-ordinary responsibility. Luckily, we have lots of exemplary people – saints, missionaries, leaders, doctors, teachers,
simple villagers, ordinary mother – in the history of humankind in which we can get inspiration. It is through those people’s
lives that the world remains “human world” due to their unconditional sacrifice in order that others may live.

Conclusion

 No human relation is perfect. It always has its ups and down because every individual in a relationship is unique and different
from each other. However, differences are not the hindrance to intersubjective relationship but how we communicate, relate,
and perceive each other as human persons. For Habermas, we could not establish genuine relationship with others unless we
assure that our communication would lead us to mutual respect and understanding. Buber believes more that the presence of
others complement our existence helping us achieve an authentic living through relationship founded on love for others and
God. Levinas offer us a thought on how self-denial and elimination of our self-centered attitude is a necessary condition to
encountering the true face of the “Other” in which we based our infinite responsibility. Each theory has given us important
insights on how to start, maintain, and deepen our intersubjective relationship with others. In a world, where people manifest
disgust for each other express in meaningless killings done in the name of religion, politics, drugs, or money, there is a need
more than ever for relationship-centered people to stand up and show the world the gift of intersubjective relationship. Perhaps,
the only way to peace is for each and every person to recognize the value of “others” and establish authentic relationship
centered on unconditional love.
For a discussion on the meaning of freedom, see https://philonotes.com/index.php/2017/12/16/what-is-philosophy/. See
also https://philosophy.fsu.edu/undergraduate-study/why-philosophy/What-is-Philosophy.