Course Code: CORE8

Course Title: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
Course Type: CORE
Pre-requisite: NONE
Co-requisite: NONE
Quarter: 2nd
Course Topic: INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Module: #6 Week: 12-13
Course Subtopic: Meaning of Intersubjectivity
An Intersubjectivity Relationship Across Differences
Genuine Communication and Intersubjectivity
Course Description: An initiation to the activity and process of
Philosophical reflection as a search for synoptic
vision of life. Topics to be discussed include the
human experiences of embodiment, being in the
world with others and the environment, freedom,
intersubjectivity, sociality, being unto death.
Course Outcomes (COs) and Relationship to Student Outcomes
Course Outcomes SO
After completing the course, the student must a b c d
be able to:
4. Demonstrate an appreciation for the talents D I R
of persons with disabilities and those from
the underprivileged sectors of society.
* Level: I- Introduced, R- Reinforced, D- Demonstrated

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

MEANING OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY

Intersubjectivity, a term originally coined by the philosopher Edmund Husserl

(1859–1938) as cited by Cooper-White, Pamela (2014), 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

According to Baker, Kelly (2016), a good way to think about intersubjectivity is

to imagine how you relate to your family and friends. Maybe your mother
enjoyed playing tennis. She took you with her when she practiced, and you
always had a good time. Growing up, you decided to join the school tennis
team. If your mother had not played tennis with you growing up, you may not

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person

S.Y. 2020-2021 Page | 1
have grown to like the sport. Your experience with tennis can be called
intersubjective because it was influenced by another person (your mother). In
order to better understand intersubjectivity, we first need to define a subject
and an object. A subject is the person experiencing an action or event. An
object is what is being experienced. When we say something is objective, we
mean that it is factually true. When we say that something is subjective, we
mean that it is based on an opinion, or a biased viewpoint, not on hard facts.
In literature, subjectivity means that the story is told from a biased viewpoint,
whether it is told by a character or an unnamed narrator. Everyone in the
world has their own subjective viewpoint. Intersubjectivity means that we all
influence and are all influenced by others to some degree. The principle of
intersubjectivity can be applied to almost any decision we make, big or small.
We always have to consider how our actions will affect others. We ourselves are
constantly affected by the actions and words of the people around us.

AN INTERSUBJECTIVITY RELATIONSHIP ACROSS DIFFERENCES

By: PhiloTech (2018)

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. He formulated four tests, or validity
claims on comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness, and rightness that must
occur in conversation to achieve mutual understanding.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person

S.Y. 2020-2021 Page | 2
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.
1. 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).
2. 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.

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person

S.Y. 2020-2021 Page | 3
Emmanuel Levinas’ Face of 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).

GENUINE COMMUNICATION AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY

By: Balchan, Michael (2016)

“Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of

magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.” – Albus
Dumbledore, J.K. Rowling

The Magic of Genuine Communication

Communicating honestly, genuinely, and authentically is powerful. Opening
ourselves up might be scary, but it also opens the door to creating true
connections to those around us, and leading happier, fuller lives. Honest and
effective communication can help us to:
 Explore who we are. Trying to describe in words what we‟re thinking or
feeling can help us get a better understanding of those things ourselves.
 Create more intimate, relationships. Relationships are about authentic
connection, about two people sharing their true selves with one another.
This requires being willing to say what we‟re really thinking and feeling.
As Kristen often reminds me, she‟s “not a mind reader!”

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person

S.Y. 2020-2021 Page | 4
  Become better leaders. Gail Kelly, one of the most powerful women in
the world 1), shares, “This digital age requires leaders to be visible and
authentic and to be able to communicate the decisions they‟ve made and
why they‟ve made them.”
 Get what we want. When we let others know exactly what we‟re looking
for, it makes it easier for them to help us get it. It also creates a clear
vision to work towards.
 Have more success. In the words of self-development pioneer Paul J.
Meyer, “Communication – the human connection – is the key to personal
and career success.”

Practicing Genuine Communication

With a little practice, we can all become better communicators.
“Communication is a skill that you can learn,” explains Brian Tracy. “It‟s like
riding a bicycle or typing. If you‟re willing to work at it, you can rapidly improve
the quality of every part of your life.” Rather than jumping right into potentially
uncomfortable or difficult conversations, try starting in situations where the
stakes are lower. For example:
 Communicate more honestly with yourself by writing in a journal.
Whether once a day, once a week, or once a month – create space for
reflection and let the words flow out unrestricted.
 Talk to a tree, or to a pet (like a dog). Sometimes all we need is
someone or something to listen to us, even if they can‟t understand – or
talk back.
 Write a letter to someone you care about. It can be a gratitude letter,
or just a note sharing something that you haven‟t felt comfortable
sharing before. You don‟t even have to send it.
 Practice listening. Everyone communicates differently according to their
own background, beliefs, and situation. Pay attention to how the people
around you are interacting, both in their body language, eye-contact, and
the things they say – or don‟t say. “To effectively communicate,”
according to Tony Robbins, “we must realize that we are all different in
the way we perceive the world, and use this understanding as a guide to
our communication with others.”

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person

S.Y. 2020-2021 Page | 5
 HOMEWORK 3:
Song Analysis: Love Me for Who I Am

Instructions: Listen to the song “ Love Me for Who I Am” by The

Carpenters. Then answer the questions that follow.
Name: _____________________________ Grade &Section: ________________
LOVE ME FOR WHAT I AM
By: The Carpenters
We fell in love We either take each other
On the first night that we met For everything we are
Together we've been happy Or leave the life we've made
I have very few regrets behind
The ordinary problems And make another start
Have not been hard to face
But lately little changes You've got to love me for
Have been slowly taking place what I am
For simply being me
You're always finding Don't love me if what you
something intend
Is wrong in what I do Or hope that I will be
But you can't rearrange my life And if you're only using me
Because it pleases you To feed your fantasy
You're really not in love
You've got to love me for what I So let me go, I must be free
am
For simply being me And if you're only using me
Don't love me for what you To feed your fantasy
intend You're really not in love
Or hope that I will be So let me go, I must be free
And if you're only using me
To feed your fantasy You're really not in love
You're really not in love So let me go, I must be free
So let me go, I must be free

If what you want

Isn't natural for me
I won't pretend to keep you
What I am I have to be
The picture of perfection
Is only in your mind
For all your expectations
Love can never be designed

Is there a connection between the song and our topic Intersubjectivity?

and How?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person

S.Y. 2020-2021 Page | 6
 SELF-ASSESMENT

Encircle
your
Answer

FORM
Read each statement and check ( ) the box that reflects your work today.

Name: Date:
Section:
Strongly
Disagree Agree
Agree

1. I found this work interesting.

2. I make a strong effort.
3. I am proud of the results.
4. I understood all the instructions.
5. I followed all the steps.
6. I learned something new.
7. I feel ready for the next assignment.
www.ldatschool.ca/executive-function/self-assessment/

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person

S.Y. 2020-2021 Page | 7
Reference Book:
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person
 Brenda Corpuz, Diwa Learning System Inc. 2016,
 Jose Romero Joven & Ramonito Canete Perez, Books Atbp.
Publishing Corporation
 Brenda B. Corpuz, BSE, MAEd, Phd et.al. OBE Publishing

Online Reference:
 Cooper-White, Pamela (2014), Intersubjectivity | SpringerLink
Retrieved from: link.springer.com › 978-1-4614-6086-2_9182
 Baker, Kelly (2016), Intersubjectivity: Definition & Examples - Video &
Lesson ...
Retrieved from: study.com › academy › lesson › intersubjectivity-definition-
examples
 PhiloTech (2018), Intersubjectivity: Introduction to the Philosophy of
the Human Person
Retrieved from: https://philotech119334246.wordpress.com/2018/10/
12/intersubjectivity/
 Balchan, Michael (2016), The Magic of Genuine Communication
Retrieved from: michaelbalchan.com › communication

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person

S.Y. 2020-2021 Page | 8