ST. DOMINIC ACADEMY OF PULILAN, INC.

(PAASCU Accredited – Level II)

National Road, Poblacion, Pulilan, Bulacan

LEARNING MODULE IN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

S.Y. 2022-2023
Semester/Quarter: SECOND

“Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor,
For we are members one of another.”
Ephesians 5:25

OPENING PRAYER: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
God, You are our origin; without You, we are nothing. We ask forgiveness for the times we turn our back
into You. Thank You for our families and friends. With this same faith, we put ourselves into Your loving
care. As another year starts, may the whole be renewed as well with Your grace. Gathering all my
personal intentions, I ask this in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ who lives and reigns with You and
the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

NAME: ______________________________________
GRADE AND SECTION: ________________________

LEARNING MODULE NO: 6

TIME FRAME: November 21- December 4, 2022
LESSONTITLE: Intersubjectivity

GOOD DAY, LET’S GET STARTED!

I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

Review:
From the previous learning module, we have discussed briefly what is being. Then we discussed the
hierarchy of beings followed by an emphasis on the human beings. Then we continued by discussing the
role of reason in freedom and morality. Though it is a continuation of Descartes’ philosophical views, this
learning module discusses about intersubjective relations. It will discuss “the problem of the other minds”.
It will then be followed with the discussion about solipsism, and finally, the “I-Thou Relationship”.

For better understanding, please watch: Happiness is helping others

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcruIov45bI

PRE-ACTIVITY
Directions: On a sheet of paper, identify three persons, and write down how you treat these three persons.
They are (1) an immediate family member, (2) a close friend, and (3) an acquaintance. Then ask these
three persons what they think about the way you treat them. Check the consistency of your answers to
their answers.

In this module you will be able to:

 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 the society

1
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 12 – LEARNING MODULE
All rights reserved. No part of this module may be shared, reproduced, or transmitted in any means without the written permission from St. Dominic Academy of Pulilan, Inc. and the teacher in-charge.
II. LESSON PROPER
THIS MATERIAL IS GOOD ONLY FOR THIS WEEK. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS MODULE AND THE
NEEDED ATTACHMENT/S ON THE SCHEDULED DATE.

You may now start to explore the discussions in this module and remember to answer all the activities
given.

III. EXPLORATION:
The issues concerning intersubjective relations may be tracked back to the philosophical problem
known as the problem of the minds. This problem may be expressed and answered in different ways but,
in a nutshell, simply asks the question of whether there are other consciousness that can be deduced
from the experience of encountering other human beings. Although we do not believe that we could ever
have a detailed account of other people’s inner lives, we do not doubt that they have an inner life, just like
us. And it is the aim of this lesson to acquaint us first with the issues concerning intersubjective relations.

The Problem of the Other Minds

The dualism of Descartes created a lot of difficulties in philosophy. The distinction—and eventually
the separation—of the mind and the body resulted to the formation of an internal and an external world.
Descartes’ desire to rid himself of all errors and establish something which he cannot doubt made him
consider everything that is delivered by his senses as false. Thus, everything that his senses perceive—
the trees outside, the sky above, and even his own body—must be regarded as not real. This led him to
his conclusion that the only thing certain is that he is existing because he is thinking: ”I think, therefore, I
am” (cogito, ergo sum). As the thinking thing established its existence, the question concerning its outside
world becomes more pronounced. The thinking thing has trapped itself into its inner world that it appears
hopeless for it to recover the reality of its outside world. How can the thinking thing establish that the
world is real if the senses are the only way by which he can relate to it? Descartes eventually settled for
an argument that will prove the existence of a good God who will not allow His creatures to be deceived.
And since a good God, whose nature will be contradicted if He practices deception, exists; then Descartes
becomes confident that what he perceives as his external word is real.

Whether Descartes had successfully argued for proving the existence of an external world outside the
thinking I, or not, will be insignificant at this point because his dualistic consideration of the human
person—primarily the separation of the I from its body—has already engendered a new problem. It is no
longer just the relation of the body and the soul which is problematized, because the relationship between
the I and its world has become more prominent. The problem now is how the thinking I is related to its
world. How does the subject relate to its objective world? And more importantly for our purposes, “How
does a thinking I relate to other thinking I’s?” It is one thing to claim that what I perceive are actually
existing outside my mind. It is another thing to claim that what I perceive is not only an object, but a
conscious being like me—another subject. If I am conscious that I am existing, and the world outside me
is also existing—can I simply conclude that other persons are conscious as well? Do other people possess
the same kind of awareness and consciousness that I now experience? I see the bodily expressions of
other people, but can I be certain that these bodies with expressions also possess consciousness? And
if so, how can I prove this? This problem is known as the problem of the other minds. This problem
asks whether what we encounter are actual conscious subjects and not just bodies or automatons. What
if you are actually alone in this world; and everyone around you is just a puppet of a great puppeteer?
Have you not considered this situation?

For some philosophers, the question whether there are other minds is a significant question, because
the answer to this question will have grave consequences on the different aspects of our lives: how we
establish truths, how we set ethical guidelines, how we arrive at a set of practices, beliefs, standards,
values, and ideals that we call culture; and many more. Now this idea of Descartes also have the same
thread of thoughts with the German philosopher named Edmund Husserl known as solipsism.

2
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 12 – LEARNING MODULE
All rights reserved. No part of this module may be shared, reproduced, or transmitted in any means without the written permission from St. Dominic Academy of Pulilan, Inc. and the teacher in-charge.
Solipsism
The term solipsism is from the Latin word solus, which means alone and ipse, which means self.
Thus, it is a philosophical perspective that considers the self alone as the only thing certain, and the only
basis of reality. Solipsism has different forms in the history of philosophy. And for the purpose of this
learning module, we consider the resulting solipsism of Husserl’s transcendental idealism as the reduction
of experience and consciousness to the consciousness of the transcendental ego; or simply put, to my
experience, my consciousness. Consequently, everything is reduced to one’s own experiences. This
leads to the problem not only of reducing the objects of
experiences to my experiences of the objects, but more
importantly, of reducing other conscious subjects to my
consciousness of them. Husserl was well aware of the possible
solipsistic criticism to his transcendental philosophy, and
attempted to provide an argument that will free him of this
charge, especially that of reducing other conscious subjects to
the transcendental ego’s perception of them. This is where the
discussion of intersubjectivity comes in. You can compare this with the “virtual world” that you can
experience through VR (Virtual Reality) wherein “everything” is a simulation pre-programmed in the game.

Solipsism is not a rational position as we deal with others on the realm of ethics (morality). If I consider
other subjects as mere ideas I have of them, then there is no point of establishing an ethical agreement
with other people—because strictly speaking, there is no one to make this agreement with if everything is
reduced to my perception of them. And from experience, we recognize that when we do things that offend
and harm others, we encounter oppositions. When, say for example, I make fun of a classmate because
I perceive that classmate as someone to be ridiculed—I am reprimanded. This means that I cannot and I
can never reduce others to my perception of them. And in the same manner, I would not like to be reduced
to someone else’s perception of myself. I then eventually realize that others are also independent
conscious subjects like me whom I need to consider whenever I make decisions for my actions.

On the level of epistemology (knowledge), we also

see that intersubjective relations are inevitable. The
objectivity of knowledge for Husserl requires the
perspective of others. I cannot simply claim
knowledge out of my own subjective perception of
reality. Again, if we consult our experience, we are
reminded of how the establishment of knowledge is
a product of agreement and confirmation of others.
If, for example, during class I say that I see a white
lady in front of the classroom, and I am the only
person who affirms its existence while others can’t
see it, I must ask whether my claim is valid at all.
Whenever I claim something I know, which turn out
to be false, for sure I will encounter oppositions. And
this clearly indicates that others are also
independent subjects like me, who has the rational
capability to determine truths from falsehood. This is where we find our rationality at work. Rationality is
not a solitary activity like that of Descartes. Rationality is an intersubjective characteristic. It is an activity
of persuading others and form agreements using arguments and evidences, and not force or deception.
The rational practices required in epistemology therefore cannot arise out of a solitary subject, and
intersubjective relations are very important in establishing knowledge.

Intersubjective Relationships
The idea of a self is a product of our relationship with others. Prior to the notion of the self, the other
comes first. The direction of our consciousness is always primarily outward, i.e., directed towards others;
and there are only very few moments when our consciousness is directed to ourselves. We are then
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 12 – LEARNING MODULE
All rights reserved. No part of this module may be shared, reproduced, or transmitted in any means without the written permission from St. Dominic Academy of Pulilan, Inc. and the teacher in-charge.
aware of others first before being aware of ourselves. How we relate to others is a topic which is of great
interest to the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber. He claims that the I can only realize itself in the face of
the other. Without the encounter with an other, the I will not be aware of its uniqueness. Thus, to say I is
already to acknowledge the other. However, there are several ways by which we relate to others. When
Buber speaks of the I realizing his uniqueness through the other, he is not referring to our simple meeting
with others. We have different modes of relating to others and not every mode will allow us to discover
the I in its uniqueness. There are several ways by which the I may relate itself to others; but let us look at
three different means by which the I may relate itself to others. These three categories are by no means
exhaustive, but this is enough to give us a picture of how people generally interact with others.

I-I Relationship
First, there is the I-I type of relationship. There are people whose world revolve around their own selves.
They have no real interest in other people and things. They have material possessions and are involved
in social activities, but they are never really committed to these things. They may talk to other people but
they never develop interest in them. They can’t simply find anything appealing in others. And if ever they
talk to other people, it is always them—their own I’s, who are the protagonists of the story. They don’t
really listen to what others are saying. They already have fixed ideas and they only enter into
conversations either to let others know how good they are, or to convince others that their ideas are better
and must therefore be adopted. The aim is for the other to be transformed into his likeness—the reduction
of the other to an I. Thus, we may call this relation as I-I Relationship.

I-It Relationship
Second, there is the I-It type of relationship. There are people who develop interest in others. They will
never attempt to reduce the other into their own likeness—into another I. And in some instances, they are
more concerned about the other than themselves. However, the treatment to the other is reduced into the
status of an object—an It. There are many different existing relationships which reduce the other into the
status of an object, and perhaps this type of relationship is the most prevalent type in our society. The I
who relates to an It is not necessarily an evil person in the sense that he has bad intentions in treating the
other. Think, for example, of scholars, who study indigenous tribes. They are very prone to reducing the
other into mere It, that is, as mere objects of investigation. This is also true in the medical field when
medical practitioners look at their patients as objects of investigation. Again, these people do not really
have bad intentions. They may actually have good intentions most of the times when they treat others (as
objects). Perhaps it is just simpler and easier if they treat others as objects. However, there are also I-It
relations where the I clearly has bad intent on the other, treating the other as mere It; examples of which
are abundant when we look at how many oppressive employers treat their employees like machines or
robots who are immune to physical, verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse; or any relationship which
has one party reducing the other to a status of an object—a bully who treats a disabled person as an
object of his amusement, a liquor company using sexy women in their advertisement to improve sales,
partners treating each other as objects and means to satisfy their desires in so-called “friends with
benefits” type of relationships, and many other similar reductions of the other into an It.

I-Thou Relationship
Lastly, there is the I-Thou type of relationships. There are people who treat other people genuinely as
persons. They do not and will not reduce the other into either their own self or into the status of an object.
It is in this type of relationship that the other is treated as distinctly other. The I treats the person as a
Thou—as another person who is different from the I; one who may possess a different set of interests,
visions, beliefs, value systems, and characteristics. This is the type of relationship which Buber considers
as that which allow us to discover the I. However, this relationship is quite difficult because it entails effort.
The treatment of the other as an other requires more than the I. The I has to take a stance of openness
and sincerity. There is a need for patience, understanding, humility, compassion, and a lot more; and
these may become tedious on the part of the I. That is why the I-Thou type of relationship is a special
relationship which we can never apply to everyone we encounter. It is in this kind of human relations that

4
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 12 – LEARNING MODULE
All rights reserved. No part of this module may be shared, reproduced, or transmitted in any means without the written permission from St. Dominic Academy of Pulilan, Inc. and the teacher in-charge.
genuine sharing of one another takes place. The foundation of this relationship is a genuine form of
conversations; a dialogue.

Dialogue
Talking to other persons does not immediately qualify as a dialogue. In fact, in many conversations among
people, what really transpire are mere monologues. Consider the I-I type of relationship. From the
categories involved, it obviously cannot be classified as a dialogue. The I-I relation is basically a speech.
It does not require an other for it to proceed. The I never relay hears what the other is saying because it
never wants to listen. For the I, the words of the other are simply sounds that they hear, which are devoid
of content, meaning and value. They only want to hear themselves talk, and they want others to see the
world in their own perspective. Thus, what results is a monologue. The I-It relationship does not also bear
the character of a dialogue. The I treats the other as an object and therefore sets himself a distance from
the It. Unlike the I-I relationship, the I-It relationship is open to listening. The I listens to the other, but
precisely as an It, an object that needs to be addressed and understood as a thing and not as a person.
Our example of a scholar studying an indigenous tribe, for instance, is prepared to listen to the tribesmen.
However, the listening is simply part of trying to understand the object of study, which is similar to the
case of the medical practitioner listening to the history and complaints of the patient. However, some I-It
relations totally negate the voice of the other, just like the case of abusive employers. The I in this I-It
relations is the only legitimate voice, and the other is literally reduced into a thing which cannot speak.
The variations of the I-It relationships ultimately fail to have a dialogical relationship. For Buber, it is only
through the I-Thou relationship that dialogues take place. In a dialogue, the I recognizes the other as a
distinct person—as Thou. It does not reduce the other to the status of an I or It. Accepting the otherness
of the other allows us to enter into a dialogue—into an exchange. Because the other presents itself as a
free individual with its own independent consciousness, we await for it to reveal itself. We do not control
and manipulate the revelation of the other, just as what happens in I-It relationships. And to achieve this,
we enter into a dialogue. When Buber speaks about a dialogue, he stresses the importance of silence, of
listening, of sensitivity. A dialogue does not always have to be an exchange of words. Dialogical relations
are expressed in ways more than the use of words: the exchange of glances, the appropriate pauses, the
stroking of hair, the powerful silence, etc. In some cases, the non-verbal dialogical relations are not only
the more appropriate means of conversations, but also the more profound form of conversation. In the I-
Thou relationship, the other is not considered according to our thoughts. We do not experience the other
as abstracted, but as a concrete embodied subject. But this experience of the embodied subject of the
other is not just some physical presence. Being with others in an elevator, for instance, does not fall under
I-Thou relationship. My encounter with the other in the I-Thou relationship is personal and I experience
the other’s presence as a communion. And so the main difference between the I-It and the I-Thou
relationship is based on this experience of communion with the other. The I-It relationship constitute the
other as an object to be experienced, while the I-Thou relationship constitute the other as a subject who
is in communion with us. The difference does not really rest on the idea that I-It is concerned with objects,
and the I-Thou is concerned with persons; because for Buber, the I-Thou relationship is the experience
of being in communion with the other through dialogue; and here, the other may not necessarily be a
human being. It could be your dog, or a tree, or God. Having said this, we have to realize that the I-Thou
relationship is a privileged type of relationship. We cannot consider every person we encounter to be
related to us in an I-Thou manner. This relationship requires effort, and the aim is never to transform the
other into something we want them to be; but to preserve the otherness of the other, and accept them as
they are. Having a dialogical relationship with someone does not mean that we have to accept everything
that the other claims, or vice-versa. There will always be disagreements, and there will be difference of
perspectives and judgments. However, the point is to understand the other; and understanding is not
equivalent to agreement. Genuine conversation requires genuine listening. The I must necessarily listen
and hear what the other is saying, and must really be open to the difference of the other. Only then can
we have a true I-Thou relationship with someone. Buber claims that he is not demanding that everyone
must have a dialogical relationship with everyone. That would be impossible. He claims not that we are
to consider others as Thou; but that we are able to consider others as Thou. Thus, the I-Thou relationship
is a question of who is willing to give themselves, and who are not; for the I-Thou relation is truly a giving
of the self, opening up to the other, and letting the Thou be immersed with the I.

5
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 12 – LEARNING MODULE
All rights reserved. No part of this module may be shared, reproduced, or transmitted in any means without the written permission from St. Dominic Academy of Pulilan, Inc. and the teacher in-charge.
IV. INTEGRATION
I am a rational moral agent
As human persons, people are beings who exist in the world together with other human individuals. Not
only do people exist tohether with others, they also live, act, feel, and move together with others. In the
process, they relate, interact, and connect with one another. People definitely depend on one another for
their needs and form a network of interdependence and interrelations. This relationship shows their social
or intersubjective nature. We have discussed that intersubjectivity, in a general sense, refers to the basic
feature or element of one’s human existence and of being a human person interrelated with other human
persons. One’s existence is characterized by the fact that there are other human individuals aside from
him/her; that he/she is not alone in this world; and that he/she relates with other people.

According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, man is a social animal. In his book entitled Politics, he
wrote, “Man is by nature a social animal’ an individual who is unsocial naturally and accidentally is either
beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who
either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake
of society, is either a beast or a god.” Aristotle means that people exist and live in a society and that they
relate and depend on one another for their needs. One’s human interactions and interdependence show
not only the social but also the relational character of his/her human existence. The social character of
one’s human existence is not only existential in the sense that it defines a person’s human existence. It is
also natural because there is natural interdependence between or among people as human individuals.
It seems impossible for humans to just live or act together, or just stand side by side with each other, and
yet not depend on one another. So one’s existence as being with others is much deeper than any object
being side by side with other objects. Objects, like chairs in a classroom, may be placed side by side, but
they are not with each other the way people are with each other. One’s being with his/her family, friends,
classmates, associates, and coworkers is rooted in his/her relational and intersubjective character. In
other words, this intersubjective and relational dimension is an essential character of one’s human
existence. However, because it is so common and basic, people almost take it for granted.

This sad reality is what should concern us. There are people who treat others as objects and uses
them to satisfy their selfish desires. Seldom are people who clearly see others as another person with the
same degree of consciousness as they have: an individual who have their own freedom, reason, and will.
Nowadays, news updates become more and more disturbing as they inform us about violence, killings,
trampling others’ dignity, heinous crimes against women and children, corruption, and the list goes on.
These things may trigger us to lose faith in humanity and believe that no one is to be trusted, and that it
is difficult to pinpoint who is a genuine friend, spouse, or family member.

Despite these situations, we must still open-handedly interact with others, not thinking whether they
may repay our kindness with kindness or violence.

V. ASSESMENT/ ACTIVITY
PERFORMANCE TASK NO. 2 (instructions will be given by the subject teacher)

VI. SYNTHESIS/GENERALIZATION
In this learning module, we have discussed the following:
 Intersubjectivity refers to the different ways by which embodied subjects relate to one another.
 As an embodied subject encounters other embodied subjects, questions concerning the
consciousness of the other emerged.
 In a genuine dialogue, the two persons involved are focused on each other; they pay attention to
the presence of each other. They may speak or just be quiet, but each of them has each other in
mind. This dialogue happens outside the confines of speech and gestures or movements.

6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 12 – LEARNING MODULE
All rights reserved. No part of this module may be shared, reproduced, or transmitted in any means without the written permission from St. Dominic Academy of Pulilan, Inc. and the teacher in-charge.
  The other individual with whom the I relates is called a Thou, to distinguish him/her from the I (me).
The other as Thou is considered as other human person or as a subject who is related to the I.
When one regards him/her as an object, he/she is reduced to an it; the it signifies an object.
 There are two types of relations. These are the I-Thou and I-It relations. The I-Thou signifies a
relation that is person to person, subject to subject. In I-Thou relation, there is acceptance,
sincerity, concern, dialogue, and care. It is characterized by mutuality, directness, presence, and
intensity. The I-It is the relation of experiencing and using; it is entirely lacking in directness and
mutuality; it is a subject-object relationship and there is an element of manipulation and control; it
deals with others only in terms of categories and qualities. The I-It is not evil in itself because it
helps one in his/her material needs but it is significant only in connection and differentiation, but
not in relation.

CLOSING PRAYER: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Father, in heaven, we are sorry for taking the blessings in our lives for granted. Thank you for the
gift of family and friendship. May we see the world healthy and anew. Gathering all my personal
intentions, grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit,
one God forever and ever.. Amen.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

REFERENCES:
 Sioco and Vinzons, Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person, pp. 155-156,
158, 171-173, 178 , Quezon City: Vibal Group Inc., 2016
 Jove Jim Aguas, Philosophy: Toward an Understanding and Appreciation of the
Human Person, pp. 85-86, 93-94 Quezon City: Abiva Publishing House Inc., 2017
 https://www-the--philosophy-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thephilosophy.com/man-
political-animal-meaning-aristotle-
qoute/amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&uspq=mp331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15967879266262
&referrer=https%3A%F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=http
s%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-philosophy.com%Fman-political-animal-meaning-aristotle-quote
 https://philosopherdhaines.blogspot.com/2012/03/thomistic-hierarchy-of-beings-
argument.html?m=1.

7
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 12 – LEARNING MODULE
All rights reserved. No part of this module may be shared, reproduced, or transmitted in any means without the written permission from St. Dominic Academy of Pulilan, Inc. and the teacher in-charge.