2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

ABOUT IPHP K-12 LOGIC ETHICS

PHILO-notes MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Learn Philosophy Online!
OTHER NOTES

Home  Modern Philosophy

Modern Philosophy Donate

Intersubjectivity: Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human
Please help us make
Person
learning philosophy online
Introduction for FREE! Donate now!

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, bene t 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 nd 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

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 1/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

we achieve and maintain good and ful lling 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 sel sh 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 Search … SEARCH
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 nd its solution on how we see,
accept, and treat the “others”. Intersubjective relationship,
Follow us on
therefore, aims in helping individuals grow together as authentic Youtube
human persons.
PHILO-notes
 
YouTube 2K
The Phenomenology of Intersubjective Relationship

 Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action

Recent Posts
Mutual understanding is an important telos of any conversation be
it a simple dialogue or an argumentation. Thoughts are re ned, THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
relationship is deepened, trust in others and con dence in oneself
HUMAN PERSON
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 THE HUMAN PERSON AS AN
always the case. In fact, it is common to see individuals with EMBODIED SPIRIT
different backgrounds such as way of thinking, believing, and
behaving could easily come into con ict when they communicate.
To avoid arriving at that point, Jurgen Habermas introduce a path CATEGORICAL LOGIC
leading to mutual understanding through his theory of (SUMMARY)
communication.

Jürgen Habermas, a known German sociologist and philosopher in EXERCISES ON FALLACIES

the tradition of critical theory of the second half of the 20th
century, is perhaps best recognized for his theory on
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
communicative rationality. In “What is Universal Pragmatics?” found
EXERCISES 
in his book Communication and the Evolution of Society, he
identi es and reconstruct “universal conditions of possible

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 2/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

understanding [Verständigung]”(Habermas, 1979, p. 1). He, rst,

introduces various forms of action that human beings use like
con ict, 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 mutual understanding. Anyone,
according to him, who engaged themselves in a speech act/dialogue
has to ful ll the following: rst, 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 rst universal validity claim of Habermas on
comprehensibility pertains to the use of ordinary language. If the
meaning of a word or statement is de ned 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

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 3/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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
nd 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 signi cant 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 in uence 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 con icts, avoidance
of misunderstanding, and establishment of intersubjective 
relationship. Living with others having different characters,

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 4/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

conviction, and thinking, it’s common for con icts 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 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 af liation 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 

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 5/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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 rst 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, classi es, 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, 

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 6/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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 speci c, 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.

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 sel sh
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

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 7/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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
ful lling 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 nd 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 nd
himself ful lled 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
ful lment 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
https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 8/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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
super cial in dealing with each other, more individualistic in doing
things solely by themselves, an authentic I-Thou mode of human
relationship is signi cantly 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 “sel es”, what food they have eaten, what place they have
visited, who are their friends, what do 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.

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 9/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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 in nite 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 In nity: 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
https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 10/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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 in nite 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 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

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 11/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

for those who are poor, weak, and marginalized by the society.
Thus, for Levinas, doing something for the “Other” and ful lling
one’s responsibility even to the point of sacri cing one’s life for the
sake of the “Other” is the identi cation 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 rede ning 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, rst
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 in nite 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 nd 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 nancial 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,
https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 12/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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 con rms 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 modi cation, 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
modi ed norms and customs. The point of Levinas is that the
“other” or the human person must rst 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.

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 13/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

Lastly, Levinas wants us to look at the reason why we give, care,

and help the others. Human, as we are, we always nd ourselves
motivated to do good things for “others” when they appreciate the
help we give and even return the favour 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 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 ful lling 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 sel sh 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 sel sh-
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 ful l 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
sacri ce 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
https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 14/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

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 in nite 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.

For a discussion on the meaning of freedom,

see https://philonotes.com/index.php/2017/12/16/what-is-
philosophy/. See also https://philosophy.fsu.edu/undergraduate-
study/why-philosophy/What-is-Philosophy.

CALENDAR CATEGORIES ARCHIVES

February 2019 CONTEMPORARY DECEMBER 2018 (2)

PHILOSOPHY (1)
M T W T F NOVEMBER 2018 (10)
ETHICS (7)
  1 OCTOBER 2018 (20)
EXISTENTIALISM (2)
4 5 6 7 8 SEPTEMBER 2018 (11)

11 12 13 14 15 1 LOGIC (29)
AUGUST 2018 (22)
18 19 20 21 22 2 MODERN PHILOSOPHY
JULY 2018 (2) 
(1)
« Dec   JUNE 2018 (2)
https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 15/16
2/11/2019 Intersubjectivity: Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes

M T W T F PHILO AND SOC SCI

MAY 2018 (6)
ESSAYS (6)
25 26 27 28
APRIL 2018 (9)
PHILO OF MAN (11)
« Dec  
MARCH 2018 (4)
PHILOSOPHY THESIS
MODELS (8) FEBRUARY 2018 (10)

RESEARCH WRITING JANUARY 2018 (2)

TIPS (2)
DECEMBER 2017 (18)
SELECTED
NOVEMBER 2017 (8)
PHILOSOPHERS (28)

SOCIAL/POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY (12)

SYMBOLIC LOGIC (14)

THEODICY (4)

UNCATEGORIZED (1)

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved | Theme of Rigorous Themes

https://philonotes.com/index.php/intersubjectivity/ 16/16