Philo Module 5

Introduction to the Philosophy of the
Governor Pack Road, Baguio City, Philippines 2600

Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Human Person
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268
Email: email@uc-bcf.edu.ph; Website: www.uc-bcf.edu.ph Grade Level/Section: Senior High School
Module 5 - Philo Subject Teacher: HUMSS Faculty
INTERSUBJECTIVITY
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.
Learning Objectives:
A. develop a sense of other-awareness;
B. evaluate the impact of relating one-self to others; and
C. answer the questions related to the concept of intersubjectivity.
PHENOMENOLOGY AS THE FOUNDATION OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY
As you can observe from our previous discussions, philosophers attempted to provide
objective truths about life – explanations about the world that is based on universal
observation and contemplation. They see the world beyond their personal experiences, taking
the role of an outside observer in doing philosophy. But are personal experiences worthless in
philosophy? Should we shrug off our subjective states in philosophizing? The answer is no, at
least for the philosopher Edmund Husserl.
The study of experience in its

subjective aspect.
Edmund Husserl is famous for being the founder of phenomenology. It is a modern method in
philosophy in which a philosopher studies different forms of experience just as we experience
them, from the perspective of the subject living through or performing them. When we do
phenomenology, we give merit to one’s personal experience and perspective about that
experience. Husserl’s philosophy on phenomenology imply that we could understand the
world by studying how we experience it, not by pure logic. To further understand what
phenomenology means, try to consider this example (continue to the next page).
Intersubjectivity | Page 2 of 9
Edited By: Mr. Erwin John E. Resurreccion
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Human Person
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268
It may be short It may be long

Example: If you are taking a Example: If you are waiting for a
difficult math test boring class to be dismissed
The meaning varies on how we experience one hour.
By definition, an hour is 60 minutes or 3600 seconds long. But this has a fairly different meaning
once we experience it and provide our perceptions about it. One hour may feel short for some
while it may feel like eternity for others. When you are taking a difficult math test, it feels like
time quickly slips away. But when you are waiting for a boring lecture to end, it feels like you
are in a prison of time. This is just a basic example of phenomenology but it highlights its beauty
in philosophy. Since we live in a society, a number of meanings attached to experiences can
be encountered. In establishing a healthy and meaningful relationship with others, we should
understand that we have varying interpretations of our experiences. This is where we introduce
the philosophy of intersubjectivity.
WHAT IS INTERSUBJECTIVITY?
It refers to the inherent uniqueness of the human

person in terms of experiences, thoughts, and
actions; limited to “self” only.
Refers to shared understanding brought by the

sharing of subjective states and experience within
human relationships; “I” and “Other”
It refers to the shared awareness and mutual understanding among persons. It’s all about the
experience and meaning of interhuman encounter. It opens us up to the nature of
commitment, the value of others, and the reality of love as the highest form of recognition. In
a nutshell, intersubjectivity pertains to human relationships characterized by a shared sense of
responsibility toward each other, respect for differences, and empathy.
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Human Person
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268
PHENOMENOLOGY OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY
There are different phenomenological insights about intersubjectivity offered by philosophers.

For this module, we will take a look at the “theory of communicative action” of Jurgen
Habermas, “I-Thou relationship/dialogue” of Martin Buber, and “the face of the other” by
Emmanuel Levinas.
A. THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION | JÜRGEN HABERMAS
Habermas’ theory of achieving mutual

understanding through effective
communication.
How do we achieve understanding

despite our differences?
Mutual understanding is an important objective 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 introduces “speech actions”
as the predominant means by which understanding is achieved. He formulated four tests, or
validity claims 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.
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.
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Human Person
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268
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. 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.
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. While low and gentle voice make us calm
and relax and, in certain situation, make us recognize the sincere words of the others.
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
Comprehensibility
would result in intersubjective
Truth
“reciprocal understanding, shared

knowledge, mutual trust, and accord Communicative
with one another”.
action
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.
Truthfulness Rightness
Living with others having different
characters, conviction, and thinking,
it’s common for conflicts to arise at
any moment and hinders good
Reciprocal understanding, shared
relationship with others. Yet, this could knowledge, mutual trust, and
be avoided when individuals are accord with one another.
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. 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.
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Human Person
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268
B. I-THOU RELATIONSHIP | MARTIN BUBER
Martin Buber’s theory of relationships built upon by how

we perceive others - either as subjects or as objects
Others as Others as
vs
objects subjects
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”. 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. He
explored the psychology of individual man in two distinct
modes or relationships, namely, the ‘I-It’ and the ‘I-Thou’.
1. Experience (I-It Relationship) - 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. 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.
2. Encounter (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”. 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. 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. 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.
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Human Person
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268
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.
C. FACE OF THE OTHER | EMMANUEL LEVINAS
Emmanuel Levinas’ theory that people are

responsible to one another in a face-to-face
encounter.
Face = living presence of another person
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 Emmanuel Levinas, A French philosopher, 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

judgmental categories” focusing more on what “I think” is good
behavior, right living, correct thinking that the “other” must elicit
for him/her to be accepted. Levinas offers lots of good insights
for achieving authentic intersubjective relationship and, in a way
complements what lacks in Buber’s I-Thou relationship.
1. We have our moral duty and infinite responsibility to people who are marginalized and
underprivileged - 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 neighbors, members of our family, and even our
class/schoolmates. Usually, the “other” does not actually need “something” from us but
only companionship, someone to talk to, someone who has the heart to listen.
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Human Person
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268
2. Be 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” behavior, 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.
3. 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 favor 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 returned? 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” Duty loses its sense when we expect and
demand from “other’s” appreciation, recognition, or return of favor. We give, help, assist
because he/she needs and no other reason. Romantically speaking, this is unconditional
love, loving without condition and selfish intention. 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.
Each theory has given us important insights on how to start, maintain, and deepen our
intersubjective relationship with others. In a world where people control or influence others in
the name of politics, religion, drugs or money, or act as heroes with selfish intentions, there is a
need more than ever for relationship-centered people to stand up and show the world the
gift of intersubjective relationship.
Tel. Nos.: (+6374) 442-3316, 442-8220; 444-2786;
Human Person
442-2564; 442-8219; 442-8256; Fax No.: 442-6268
SYNTHESIS
A. Difference and Moral Responsibility
Intersubjectivity finds itself intertwined in social and political relations. Our social existence is
grounded in the basic idea of mutuality. The very purpose of society is the realization of that
moral ideal in which each human being is truly respected and is able to realize most fully and
in a concrete way the basic meaning of this humanity. But unjust hegemonic relations in our
society which undermine people due to their otherness is a big problem that we must address.
Our social existence implies belonging to a hierarchy. In the order of things, people assume
positions in society on the basis of their positions of power or a person’s material achievement.
The unequal situation of people may result to the experience of misrecognition. For example,
the dominance of a patriarchal culture and the preference for able-bodied persons are two
forms of oppression which reveal the reality and the evil of human indifference.
B. Responsibility for the Other
In our present social order, the other is the powerless who is under the domination of the self.
Our society forgets the people in the margins because they are weak. Infinite responsibility
refers to a term used by Emmanuel Levinas, which means to that to be human is to be
ultimately responsible for the other. For any responsibility to be ethical, it has to reach beyond
one’s being in order to recognize the otherness of the other.
The face of the other bespeaks of our moral responsibility. The human person is this face. For
Levinas, it is through the other that the self realizes itself. The face of a slave completes the
being of a master. In this sense, the subject that we are depends on a moral demand. In the
midst of the violence, that one finds in the world, whereby power totalizes all into a
homogenous identity, the face of the other presents itself as an ultimate mandate ---- “Thou
shall not kill”. The other is that suffering being who demands that the self should hold itself
morally responsible.
According to Leovino Garcia, the self’s moral responsibility for the other is concrete because
the other, the face, is concrete. It is what defines us and determines for us the quality of our
choices. But it is one that is above any norm or standardization. Levinas reminds us that the
responsibility for the other is a movement from “a home that we inhabit toward that place
which is an alien outside- of-onself, toward a yonder.”
REFERENCES:
• Sy, D. & Basas, A. (2018). Philosophy of the Human Person An Introduction. Abiva Publishing House, Inc.
• PHILO-notes. (n.d.) Intersubjectivity: Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Retrieved from:
https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/

Philo Module 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philo Module 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to the Philosophy of the

Governor Pack Road, Baguio City, Philippines 2600

PHENOMENOLOGY AS THE FOUNDATION OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY

The study of experience in its

It may be short It may be long

The meaning varies on how we experience one hour.

It refers to the inherent uniqueness of the human

Refers to shared understanding brought by the

There are different phenomenological insights about intersubjectivity offered by philosophers.

A. THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION | JÜRGEN HABERMAS

Habermas’ theory of achieving mutual

How do we achieve understanding

Mutual understanding is an important objective of any conversation be it a simple dialogue

1. Comprehensibility - pertains to the use of ordinary language. If the meaning of a word or

Comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness,

“reciprocal understanding, shared

B. I-THOU RELATIONSHIP | MARTIN BUBER

Martin Buber’s theory of relationships built upon by how

The onset of industrialization and the growth of large urban

C. FACE OF THE OTHER | EMMANUEL LEVINAS

Emmanuel Levinas’ theory that people are

Whenever we deal with someone, we use the values and beliefs

In relating with others, we also apply our own “analytical or

A. Difference and Moral Responsibility

B. Responsibility for the Other

You might also like