Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
Region VI-Western Visayas
Pavia National High School
Evangelista St., Pavia, Iloilo

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

QUARTER 2: HUMAN INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS

INTRODUCTION:

Man is a social being. There was never a time that man is alone. Our existence is always with others. You
may be alone physically now, reading this material. But in reality, you are not. I, the writer, is with you. In as much
as, you are also in my mind as I write this lesson, alone physically now. Apply the same idea to your paper, ball pen,
cellphone and other things that is with you. Many people are involved in the creation of those things, just so you can
learn a concept and fulfill your task as a student today. This is a concrete example that indeed it takes a community
and a whole world to educate a child.
Our existence is a product of a dialogue. Primarily, between you and your parents, even when you are just
but a zygote in the womb of your mother. Add on to your parents are the doctors, the pharmacist, the fruit vendors
and many more that contributed to your wellbeing in the womb, they are part of what you are now. Many are in
dialogue with you.
That dialogue is intersubjective. It happens between you, your parents, people in the community to name a
few. In this Module, we will come to understand that, ‘I am a subject’, a human with body and soul, a unique person.
However, I am not alone. I recognize and interacts with other subjects, who are also human with body and soul like
me. They too, are existing body and soul that is outside of myself, in the world.
This module will help us appreciate our uniqueness and respect as well the otherness of others. We will
realize that we are persons, different from each other, needing each other. This truth can help us understand the
reason of our existence and see the meaning and the need for harmonious co-existence with others. We may differ
in many things but the self, which I live for and that of yours IS A PAIR that shares each other’s lived experiences.
I am happy that you are part of me.

At the end of the module, you should be able to:

 Realize that intersubjectivity requires accepting differences and not imposing on others (PPT11/12-IIc-6.1);
 Explain that authentic dialogue means accepting others even if they are different from themselves
(PPT11/12-IId-6.2);
 Perform activities that demonstrate an appreciation for the talents of persons with disabilities and those
from the underprivileged sectors of society (PPT11/12-IId-6.3)

Intersubjectivity: The Social Dimensions of the Self

In previous Modules, we understood that we are unique individuals, made up of body and soul. We were
invited to accept ourselves with all its greatness and limitations. We learn too, that we are in the world, existing. The
world is our home. For our well-being, we are to take care of the environment and live harmoniously with our world.
In this world, I am part of a community and of a society. Daily, I am interacting with others. This interaction is
intersubjective. It is the social dimension of myself. It is the ‘me’ reaching out to others. Differences is a given fact in
interacting, be it in views, values or choices. Conflicts too are real, because of differences. However, mutual respect
is very possible leading to peaceful co-existence. The succeeding discussion will help us how to achieve it.
To understand this concept fully, we divide the theme on intersubjectivity into sub-topics with
corresponding philosopher as proponents.

Grade 12 – Social Sciences 1

Competency Name: Distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point of view (PPT11/12-Ia-1.1)
 I. Inter subjectivity a Dialogue

Martin Buber’s I-Thou

For Martin Buber, Dialogue is a state of being, it is not a situation we commonly experience, just like talking
with friends or anyone. Buber asserts, we are a dialogue and since it is so: we cannot be NOT in dialogue. Our mere
existence as persons is a dialogue in a Thou and an It.
I-Thou I-It
This is a word pair used in relation to humans. This is a word pair used in relation to things.

Every time I say “I” it includes with it the Without the I-it dialogue, we cannot live. We
“thou.” There is no “I” without a “thou.” An “I” have our basic need such as food, shelter,
is only an “I” with a “thou.” The “thou” is clothing and many more things to survive each
presupposed in every “I”. day.

A fully human life is possible only with dialogue However, whoever lives only with that (the “it”)
of the “I-thou” standpoint. is not human.
Thus the Filipino euphemism, “paano ako (I) Sometimes we appropriate the “I-it” to a
kung wala ka (Thou)?” person.
When we objectify a person and consider him/her a means and not an end, an
“aggressor” and not a partner, then we lose the true essence of personal relationship:
a dialogue, an “I-thou.”

Martin Buber explains that mutuality in interacting with others happens because human beings have an
instinct for communion. What drives us for this relation with others is the “inborn Thou”, a tender surface of
personal life which longs for contact with another life.
What is the challenge of intersubjectivity as a dialogue? We are in search for an answer to the question,
‘who can be a “thou” for me?’ In the sphere of the human – our life with men – there is no person, no situation,
contact, or involvement with another human being that is excluded from the possibility of being a partner in
dialogue – from the most fleeting and occasional, to the most stable and enduring. My humanity tells me that ALL
are my brothers and sisters – “thou” for me

II. Intersubjectivity as Love

Max Scheler’s Phenomenology of Love

For Max Scheler there is a hierarchy of values. These are vital values, intellectual values and values of the
holy.
Often times we associated love with the heart, with emotions. However, for Max Scheler, love belongs to the
intellectual values and proceeding to the values of the Holy. What does that mean? It simply means that before we
love, we must know that which we love for it is only in knowing that which we love, can we love.
What should be our motive in loving? Is it the knowledge about the beloved? No! The motive is, the knowing
itself, the effort to know is in itself the love. Thus, the more we love, the more we know because we tried to know
first, thinking that the knowledge of the beloved will make us love the beloved, only to discover that the knowing is
the loving already.
What do we love in the known beloved? It is not so much about the likability of the beloved (through
knowing) that we love the beloved (who knows the beloved is not likable), but we love the beloved because we
know the beloved (whether the beloved is likable or not). Knowing is loving thus, to know is to love.
Whatever (whoever) is that which we love is loved because we love it/him/her. It is not its/his/her lovability
that we love it/him/her; but we love it/him/her that it/he/she is why it/he/she is lovable. The loving (as a value)
makes things and persons lovable, and we cannot but love it/him/her more

Grade 12 – Social Sciences 2

Competency Name: Distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point of view (PPT11/12-Ia-1.1)
 There is no higher value than love, that is why, it approaches the values of the Holy (Holiness). Loving
persons are holy persons inversely, holy persons are loving persons. Holiness is love, love is holiness. God is love for
God is holy.
What is the challenge? A loving person desires only what is good for the beloved, even sacrificing himself for
the beloved for the beloved is what matters for the loving person. Once fulfilled, life is fulfilled; for life is for love,
and love is the greatest act of living (living is loving – to love is to live)

III. Intersubjectivity: Accepting Differences

Emmanuel Levinas’ Infinite Responsibility for the Other (who is totally Other)

For Emmanuel Levinas, when the Face shows itself, freedom is replaced by responsibility. What is this Face?
The Face refers to the totality of another’s being (face, mind, body, spirit, heart, dreams, thoughts, ideas, aims,
goals, spirituality, beliefs, attitudes, sexuality, etc.). The Face is everything in man. The Face is the other man.
Concretely, the Face can be strangers, beggars, or anyone that gets me out of my self-enclosed world, of my
selfishness, and “pulls” me toward it in responsibility.
Radically, Levinas states that left to ourselves we will rot in selfishness. But, thanks to the Face that makes
us who we are – “for-the-other”. Infinite responsibility for the other is basic philosophy of life. When we face the
Face, the Face, disarranges/reorders our world and our world, will not be the same again.
On the contrary, a selfish man would want to maintain the same order (irresponsibility) in their world. The
Face, would have no place in here. The same order means selfishness, depersonalization, rejection of life. For
Levinas, status quo is irresponsibility
When the Face calls, we respond (responsibility). It also imposes a general care for all human others whose
face and word I cannot perceive personally. In this other’s face, I see the virtual presence of all men and women.
However, we should be on guard, and let it sink in that The Face of the Other to whom we are responsible is not
me, the Face is totally Other, totally different from me. I cannot make the Other the Same as me (i.e.,
totalization). Instead, I allow the Other to be “other” and not the Same (as me)
By maintaining the difference, I am “for-the-other.” If I make the Other the same as me, I am “for-me” and
makes me “The Same.” There is no intersubjectivity in “totalization”

What is the Challenge:

o To see the Other as Face
o To respond to the Face (as Other)
o To allow ourselves to be disturbed by the Other as totally Other
o To revolutionize our life and world
o To allow the “I” to fade away and focus more on the Other as Other
o To be infinitely responsible for the Other as totally Other
o To see responsibility to the Faces connected to the Face of this Other

VI. Intersubjectivity: Respect

Paul Ricoeur’s Fallibility and Respect

Paul Ricouer, observes that a given object presents only one side of itself. It is on this basis that I realize that
I see things from a specific, limited point of view and am, in this sense, finite, he concluded.
This perspectival view can cloud my judgments that sometimes it makes me choose the things I do not want
to do and thereby commit faults. This preconditions me to fragility or fallibility. But to be fragile is not yet to break:
the impetus plunging us into moral evil is not generated by the structures of our humanity per se – and thus, it
cannot be blamed upon them
Man is both finite (body) and infinite (soul). His finite pole (being bodily) and his infinite pole (being spiritual)
make his disproportion great, making him fallible and fragile. The fact that a person is fragile, weak and fallible
demands that we take him or her as an end. Making him or her as a means disrespects his or her person, devastating
him or her to the core and adds more to his or her great disproportion thus, he/she needs more respect

Grade 12 – Social Sciences 3

Competency Name: Distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point of view (PPT11/12-Ia-1.1)
 Ricoeur is emphasizing that unless man respects this fragility in man, man can never become whole again,
and this can be detrimental to the growth in communion of the community. For how can a broken person contribute
to the communion of the community? Deep within himself, he experiences this brokenness and this is further
broken by other members of the community who do not respect him. Communion starts from a deeper
understanding of each other’s fragility and fallibility. Only then can healing start and pave way for communion of
persons in the community.

What is the Challenge:

o To see our own fragility and brokenness
o To see the fragility and brokenness of others
o To give total respect for the other
o To take care not to break the other (even if that entails our being broken)
o This is agape, the sacrificial breaking of ourselves to make others whole again
o This is the respect that heals

Guided Learning:
1. Recall your relationship with others. Is it a one-sided understanding or mutual acceptance of one another?
Cite examples.
2. For existentialists: “We are responsible for more than what becomes of us; we are also responsible for what
becomes of others.” Explain.

Grade 12 – Social Sciences 4

Competency Name: Distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point of view (PPT11/12-Ia-1.1)