INTERSUBJECTIVITY: INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

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

INTERSUBJECTIVITY| Page 1 of 7
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

INTERSUBJECTIVITY| Page 2 of 7
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.

INTERSUBJECTIVITY| Page 3 of 7
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

INTERSUBJECTIVITY| Page 4 of 7
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

INTERSUBJECTIVITY| Page 5 of 7
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

INTERSUBJECTIVITY| Page 6 of 7
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.

Source: https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/

INTERSUBJECTIVITY| Page 7 of 7