Scribd
Upload
12 views2 pages

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

Uploaded by

melaniecaroran9
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views2 pages

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

Uploaded by

melaniecaroran9
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

In its most general sense of that which occurs between or exist among conscious human actors,
INTERSUBJECTIVITY is a little more than a synonym for THE SOCIAL. It denotes a set of relations,
meanings, structures, practices, experiences, or phenomena evident in human life.

In another sense, INTERSUBJECTIVITY is the sharing of experiential content (feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and
linguistic meanings) among a plurality of subjects.

INTERSUBJECTIVITY, refers to the condition of man, a subject, among other men, who are also a subject.

We cannot speak of man without implying and drawing from his situatedness within the world, and this situatedness
always involves other subjects such as himself is.

Man is a being with others.

 We are all unique individuals. Most of the time, we look at our differences and may have labels towards
one another.

 Though we are part of our society, we are still different individuals living in this society.

 Each of us will have different appearances or points of view.

Intersubjectivity as ontology: the social dimensions of the self

 Martin Buber and Karol Wojytla

- both philosophers were influenced by their religious background.

- they believed in the notion of CONCRETE EXPERIENCE/ EXISTENCE OF THE HUMAN PERSON.

- Both refused to regard human person as a composite of some kind dimensions such as animality and rationality.

- THE HUMAN PERSON IS TOTAL not dual.

 Martin Buber

-A Jewish existentialist philosopher.

-In his work I AND THOU (Ich and Du), he conceives the human person in his/ her wholeness, totality,
concrete existence and relatedness to the world.

SOCIAL AND INTERHUMAN

Social points to group or communal existence. Certain animals operate under this category.

Interhuman refers to the life between and among persons who are non-interchangeable and non-objectifiable. It
refers to the interpersonal, that is a life of dialogue.

I-thou promotes dialogue

I-It hinders dialoge

Song “Love me for what I am”

Saint Pope John Paul II or Karol Wojtyla

-In his encyclical letter, Fides et ratio, he criticized the traditional definition of human as “rational animal”.
-He maintains that the human person is the one who exists and acts (conscious acting, has a will, has self
determination)

Participation

-for Wojtyla, action reveals the nature of human agent.

-Participation explains the essence of the human person. Through participation, the person is able to fulfill one’s
self.

-As St. Augustine of Hippo said, “No human being should become an end to him/herself. We are responsible to our
neighbors as we are to our own actions”.

We participate in the communal life (We). Our notion of the “neighbor” and “fellow member” is by
participating in the humanness of the other person (I-you). The neighbor takes into account humanness.

“WE” relation

-For Wojtyla, the social dimension.

I-THOU

-Buber’s philosophy is about human person as a subject, who is being different from things or objects

-The human persons as subjects have direct and mutual sharing of selves.

-This signifies a person-to-person, subject-to-subject relation or acceptance, sincerity, concern, respect, dialog, and
care.

-The human person is not just being-in-the-world but being-with-others, or being-in-relation.

I-It relationship

-In contrast, to realm of meeting and dialog, Buber cites I-It relationship.

-I-It relationship is a person to thing, subject to object that is merely experiencing and using; lacking directedness
and mutuality (feeling, knowing, and acting)

Example:
Imagine a student and a teacher talking after class.
 I-Thou Relationship: The student feels comfortable asking the teacher about personal challenges they face
with the subject. The teacher listens patiently, responds thoughtfully, and shares their own experiences. In
this moment, both see each other as whole individuals, creating a meaningful connection.
 I-It Relationship: Now, think of a different scenario where the student only asks the teacher for answers to
homework without engaging or showing interest in the teacher's perspective. Here, the teacher is seen more
as a tool for information, not as a person.
The first situation is an I-Thou relationship, while the second is an I-It relationship. The key difference is the depth
of connection and recognition of each other's humanity.

You might also like