Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
DIVISION OF CALAPAN CITY

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person

Module 6: Intersubjectivity

Content Standard: The learner understands intersubjective human relations

Performance Standard: The learner performs activities that demonstrate an

appreciation for the talents of persons with disabilities and
those from the underprivileged sectors of society

Competencies: Realize that intersubjectivity requires accepting differences and not

imposing on others.
Explain that authentic dialogue means accepting others even if they
are different from themselves.
Performs activities that demonstrate an appreciation for the talents of
persons with disabilities and those from the underprivileged sectors of
society

Time Duration: 1 week

Lecture

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).

I-It relationship (Subject – Object, Person – Thing)

Buber has a philosophical writings entitled I and Thou (ich und Du). This is idea
of Buber to explain the connection or relationship of self (agent or subject) with others,
with the world and with God. He tried to divide his idea with 2 context or experience.
The first one is the relationship of “I-It”. This kind of interaction, according to Buber is
between Self and things in this world. One of the concrete example is the interaction of
a student (the one who is reading this module) and the module itself. The “I” is the agent
or the student while the “It” is the module. The context of “It” in this situation is the one
who is receiving the interpretation of “I”. Meaning, This is a one way interpretation of
the situation. Only the “I” can interpret the object, “It”. In this situation, the meaning of
their relationship is depending on the meaning given by the “I” or the student. So, the
student (“I”) is the one who is responsible on whatever the interpretation or the
processed meaning of the module (“It”). Other examples of I-It relationship is your
relationship with your gadget, teacher (“I”)-laptop (“It”) context, your mother (“I”) and a
hanger (“It”) in which she holds every time she wants to ensure that you are studying. It
means that the “I” is the only one who can interpret the meaning of the thing/s “It” based
on his / her perception.

I-Thou relationship (Subject – Subject, Person/s – Person/s)

The next relationship or connection is the “I-Thou” relationship or in the present

translation is the “I-You” relationship. Unlike the “I-It” relationship which is one way
communication, the “I-Thou” relationship is a two way process of communication. In
your subject oral communication, there is a topic there about the two way
communication. It means that the speaker is giving information to the receiver. Then the
receiver can be the speaker by relying his / her comment or reply to the sender which is
now the receiver. By this, there are two ways of giving the meaning of things. This is a
relationship or encounter between two agents or persons giving their own perspective
and meaning. But it is not limited only to two individual having a conversation. It can be
also in the case of a teacher giving lecture in front of his/ her students about the
meaning of “I-Thou” relationship. As long as they are giving or sharing of subjective
state. The meaning shared can be used to interpret the meaning of culture and society.

The bottom line of this is that intersubjectivity is intended to share but not to impose to
others. This is accepting the variety of opinion and differences but not imposing your
own perspective to others. One good thing in this topic is that you are not forced to
accept the perspective of others but you are obliged to respect it. Though we are part of
one society, we are still different individuals. It means that each one of us will always
have different point of view or take in everything.
For further reading

(This is directly copied from a reliable philosophical source.)

Martin Buber’s I-Thou Relationship

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 exper iencing, 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” lac ks 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 rela tionship, 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 psychologica l 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, ther efore, 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 th e 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 t alk 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. 1

Activity:

You are an advocate of PWD‟s respect campaign awareness and you are tasked to be the
speaker about appreciation of talents of PWD‟s and underprivileged person in the society. You are
required to create a speech for a talk to be delivered on public/beneficiaries of your program and
pass it to the campaign manager for checking. Your work will be evaluated in the light of content,
mechanics, reasoning and depth of analysis. (Write your answer on the separate sheet. Your answer
must be ATLEAST 15 sentences.)

1
philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity, accessed on July 18, 2020, 10:25 pm