Lecture 5Man and His Fellowmen: Human Intersubjectivity

Introduction:- Human Intersubjectivity means that man is a being with, for others

- my being as a human person is constituted by my being with, for others- I could not exist as an I, as a human person, as a subjectivity without existing/being with, for others.

- My being, the I, my personhood, my subjectivity is essentially:- An openness- A participation to the presence of - A creative belonging Other Persons (Human Persons or Absolute Thou)- Directed toward

- This human intersubjectivity could be denied affirmed or denied through my freedom- As an embodied subject, I deny or affirm my intersubjectivity in and through my body.- How is the human intersubjectivity/co-existence affirmed or denied in and through my body? Through:

- DIALOGUE/ENCOUNTER- LOVE- JUSTICE

A. Human Dialogue/EncounterThe Elements of Interhuman by Martin Buber

Outline:

1. Distinction between Social Sphere (I-It Relation) and Interhuman Sphere (I-Thou Relation)2. Conditions and Obstacles for Interhuman Relation

a. Being and Seemingb. Personal Making Present and Speechfyingc. Unfolding and Imposition

3. Marks of Genuine Dialoguea. Fulfilled in its beingb. Between partners who have turned toward another in truthc. Who express themselves without reserve and are free of desire for resemblanced. Fruitful

1. Distinction between Social Sphere (I-It Relation) and Interhuman Sphere (I-Thou Relation)

SOCIAL SPHERE INTERHUMAN SPHERE a. I-It Relation: I relate with /treat the other

person as an It.1. I relate with the other as part

i. a part of the group/whole- as nothing more than a part/a

member of the group/mass to which he belongs- one of us- one of them

- collectivismii. a part of himself/herself

- I relate only with a part/an aspect of himself, not in his totality

- one his/her roles or functions in society

- one of his attributes, qualities, characteristics, traits

- individualismiii. this level of the person (his/her

parts) could be labeled, be conceptualized clearly and precisely.- A non-mystery

a. I-Thou Relation: I relate with/treat the other as a Thou1. I relate with the other in his/her totality,

uniqueness, unity, depthi. in his/her Totality/Unity

- I relate in the totality/wholeness of his/her being, with all the aspects, dimensions, and elements

- I relate as someone greater than his being one of us or one of them

ii. in his/her Uniqueness- relate with what stands beyond the

totality of his qualities and roles, beyond the identity and dignity he derives from the group he belongs

- relate with the other in his/her depth, in/her subjectivity- original source of

hi/her actions, attitudes, qualities, possibilities

- which stamps all these with recognizable sign of uniqueness and integrity

iii. Could not be labeled or understood by any concept- could never be exhausted by any

concept, fully grasped by reason.- The Other as a Mystery

2. I relate with the other as an object 2. I relate with the other as a subject

1

- I encounter the other as an object:- Could be observed,

categorized, judged (object of knowledge)

- as means, instrument of my activities, agenda

- functional relation- the other is valued, being the

object of interest/concern because of his contribution, function to the interest/agenda:- of the group (collectivism)- of the individual/myself

(individualism)

- the other is treated as a subject:- as the source of his own value,

action, creativity, possibility.- As someone which should and

could never be manipulated or determined by me

- The other is valued in his/her own right, in his/her own sake, in his/her own uniqueness regardless of whether he/she has value or function to the group or me. This consideration becomes irrelevant or at least secondary.

b. The kind of relation/the bond in this kind of relation is created by common experiences, common understanding, common judgment and common action. - In short, it is created by being in the

group, by being part of the same society.

- The bond differs, is different or even absent if someone is outside of the group, those who do not belong to the same society.

b. This Relation/Bond could arise outside/apart from those I have common experiences, understanding, etc. with.- I could enter into this kind of

relation (I-Thou) with someone even outside of the group and society I belong, with a complete stranger

- Even with someone who is an enemy of my society, my group; with an enemy

- Thus, not necessarily created by common experiences, common understanding, etc.

c. This kind of relation/encounter is most casual, superficial, ordinary

c. This kind of relation/encounter is: privileged, dramatic, seductive, magical- Experienced in a spur of a moment

yet not in the context of space and time.- In the experience, one loses sense

of time and space- Though momentary, it remains

sunk in the memory- When it passes, one goes back to

the I-It relation but no longer seen in itself but in relation with the I-Thou experience/encounter

- One is opened to the Thou that may experience again the I-Thou encounter.

2. Conditions and Obstacles to Interhuman Existence and Relation

- there is no doubt that this could be attained- we must be aware of the conditions which make this possible and also of the obstacles that prevent this to

occur.

a. Being vs. Seemingi. Seeming

- Seeming Existence- Kind of existence which proceeds from and is dominated by what I wish to seem, to appear

before others- My life is dominated, determined by the impressions I make on others, on the impression I want

to make on others- Seeming Relation

- Seeming existence leads to, is at work, affects one’s relation with others- Since he is concerned with the impressions/appearances he creates/makes on the other, he tries to

create a look which he wishes to appear on the other.- He communicates with the other what he wants to appear and not what he is- Not a spontaneous relation, always guarded lest he will create/make the wrong impressions,

i.e. opposite or different from the impressions he wants/wishes to create.- Too concerned with appearance, he does not ask anymore or it does not matter anymore to him if

the appearance corresponds to his being, to what he really is.- He might lie

2

- He ignores, unaware, uninterested what he really is- Not interested to let others share his very being.

- This kind of existence and relation becomes obstacles to interhuman relation (I-Thou) as it creates too many ghosts which obscure and obstruct the I-Thou. Illustration: - two men, let us say Peter and Paul whose life and relation is dominated by seeming- six ghosts are created

- Peter as he wishes to appear to Paul- Paul as he wishes to appear to Peter- Peter as he actually appears to Paul- Paul as he actually appear to Peter- Peter as he appears to himself- Paul as he appears to himself

ii. Being- Kind of existence

- Which proceeds from what one really is, from one’s very being, from the depth of his personal life.

- Independent, not dominated by the impressions:- One wishes to make on the others- One actually makes on the others- Others make of him

- Kind of Relation- Since he is not concerned with the impressions/semblances he makes or can awaken on the others

or the impression others make of him, he does not consciously and deliberately create a “look”, an appearance, a semblance

- Rather, he relates spontaneously, without reserve- He communicates to the other what he is; he grants a share in his being.- He does not let any false semblance/look/appearance to creep in, to smokescreen his self-giving,

self-presence.

iii. The Challenge to let Being predominate Seeming- Generally, these two kinds of existence and relation are found mixed in every person

- No person is entirely independent of seeming- No person completely proceeds from his being

- Why? Widespread tendency to live from the recurrent impression one makes instead of from one’s being. This is not natural to man and it originates on the other side of the interhuman life itself, in men’s dependence upon one another.

- Challenge:- to drive out the ghosts, to vanish the semblances- to live and be strengthen by one’s being, the depth of personal life- one must struggle, must pay the price to do this but never in vain.

b. Personal- Making Present vs. Speechfyingi. Speechfying

- though one is speaking, he does not really speak to the other but he is merely speaking to himself.- He does not really direct what he saying to the other as a person

- Why? There is a way of speaking which creates an impassable wall between persons.1. The one who is speaking is so enclosed, so shut up in himself

- he is only concerned with himself, with his own interest, agenda, needs, affairs etc.- he does not care, bother even to know the other’s concern.

2. He has an inadequacy, inability to treat and perceive the other as a person, as a thou- He does not treat and perceive the other as unity, unique, mystery, in his/her subjectivity

because the analytical, reductive and deriving look predominates.- Analytical:

- Whole person simply as a put together of the different parts: characteristics, roles/functions, labels, utterances, actions, attitude, behavior

- The whole person could be taken into different parts through which it could be completely intelligible.

- Reductive:- Contract the complex and manifold person who is nourished by the microcosmic

richness of the possible to some schematizing, surveyable and recurrent structures.- Deriving:

- Grasp what a man has become and even his becoming in genetic formulae- Think that the central principle of the person can be represented by a concept.

- This way at looking at and speaking to the other is helpful in some other areas of human life and even indispensable

- But one should be aware of the boundary in which this could no longer be useful but destructive - Person, the original source of the stillest enthusiasm, initiative, possibilites, etc. is leveled down.- The mystery of the person is radically destroyed

- and one should be careful not to stretch this boundary to become a horizon.

ii. Personal-Making Present

3

- In speaking, I really speak to the other as the person he is- I regard him as the very person that he is- I am not just speaking just to myself.

- How do I speak to Other in this manner?1. I am really aware of the Other as a Thou (as whole/unity, unique/different, as mystery, in his/her

depth)- whole/unity:

- not just a part of any whole or just a part of himself - but someone who stands beyond any sum total of all his qualities, attributes, aspects,

some who stands more than the group or whole he/she belongs.- Depth, unique, mystery

- At the deepest aspect of himself/herself, he/she is the original source/a dynamic center of all his actions, attitudes, utterances, thoughts, activities, etc.

- Which stamps all these recognizable uniqueness; the other as different from me- Indeterminable: rich in possibilities could not be exhausted, which could not be realized

except by itself and from within.- Mystery which could not be understood by any concept

2. I direct what I say to Other as a Thou (as whole/unity, unique/different, as mystery, in his/her depth)- I speak to the other in view of his wholeness/integrity, uniqueness, depth, mystery- I do not simply speak with myself in view: my interest, my concern, my viewpoint, etc.

3. I accept the Other as a person, a Thou- Though I might disagree with he/she is saying, I find repugnant some of his qualities and

attribute and him/her totally different- I still accept the bearer of these different convictions, these repugnant qualities. I accept the

other in his utter otherness.- How can be aware or at least treat the other as a Thou?

- By IMAGINING THE REAL- Not just looking at the other- But a bold swinging into the life of the other which demands the most intensive stirring from

within- Imagine not all possible actions of the person that confront me- But imagine the real person who confronts me, i.e. in his wholeness, unity, and uniqueness

and with his dynamic center which realizes all these things ever anew.- When we do this today, we prepare tomorrow’s clear sight, some kind of intuition.

c. Unfolding and Imposition- In our discussion above of the two conditions and obstacles for interhuman relation, we consider:

- Two basic ways in which he presents himself in his relation with the Other: Being and Seeming;- Two basic ways in which he treats the other particularly in his speech: Personal-Making Present

and Speechfying.- In the third condition and obstacle, we will look at the two basic ways of affecting men in their views

and their attitude to life: unfolding and imposition

i. Imposition- General Description

- Man tries to impose himself, his opinion, attitude on the other in such a way that the latter feels the psychical result of his action to be his insight, which has only been freed by the influence.

- Propaganda as Imposition- If we want to look into the specific characteristics of this ways of influencing, let us examine

how this work in propaganda whether this is powerfully developed.- Thus, we could say that the way of imposition is the way of propaganda, and the way of

propaganda is the way of imposition.1. The Primary Concern: particular cause, agenda, project, purpose, task identified with a party or

group.2. Not in the least concerned with the Other as a person

- a propagandist is only interested in the various qualities, attitudes or aspects of the other which he could exploit to win the other to his cause, project, agenda, etc.

- is not interested in the deepest aspect of the person, with the other as a person, as a Thou, for it is considered as a burden, an obstacle, a distraction to the cause, agenda, etc.- indifferent to anything personal.

3. In the exploitation of the various qualities/aspects of the person for his own cause or project, the question whether the person consents or not is not important.- The important thing is to get the other to his side, to use his qualities/attributes to further the

cause, whether one gets this with the other’s consent or by forcing him/her.- The act of violence, of forcing, manipulating the other could be used. It enters into different

relations with force: it supplements or replaces it, according to the needs of the prospects. At its height, it leads to depersonalization: violence on the person.

4. The propagandist does not believe in his/her own cause- Because he does not trust it to attain its effect of its own power without his special methods,

whose symbols are the loudspeaker and the television advertisement.ii. Unfolding

4

- General Description:- Helps/disposes the other:

- To unfold by himself/herself, through himself/herself, in the process of his/her own being- To realize his own unique self-project, which could be fulfilled though him/her alone, by

him/her alone- To recognize in himself/herself what is right or wrong, what he/she should do or not do.

- Specific Characteristics- This way of affecting is powerfully developed and realized in education.- Thus, if we want to look at the specific characteristics and concrete dynamic of unfolding,

we will describe what happens in the realm of education.- Education is essentially a way of unfolding.

1. Primary Concern: Individual Person- a educator’s primary commitment and concern is not his own cause, agenda, project but the

individual persons entrusted to his care- each of the persons is a bearer of a special task of existence, of unique self-project which

can be fulfilled only through him and by him alone.- He is committed to the person as person to the extent he is committed to this unique/special

task, to this unique self-project and its realization.2. The Individual Person and his unique self-project could never be treated merely as a means or

dispensable to some other projects, cause or agenda- Kantian Categorical Imperative: man should be not be treated solely as a means- This does not mean that man should be seen in isolation for man is essentially a relation, an

intersubjectivity.- But in his relation with others, he should not destroy this self-project of the other by

subordinating this or making this as dispensable to some other projects or goals. - but he should assist it in its self-unfolding.

3. An educator sees himself/herself as somekind of a handmaid, a servant to the self-actualization of the other’s unique self-project.- He helps/assists the other to become himself by himself, through himself:

- to become his/her or unique person- to realize his/her unique, irrepeatable self-project - to see in himself and by himself the truth, the right, the good, the beautiful, etc.

- he knows that there are counterforces: forces acting against the self-actualizing force/dynamism of the person

- he is there as a helper of the self-actualizing force within the person as the person realizes his self-project and struggles against the counterforces

- he cannot wish to impose himself for he knows this would do violence to the person, to the actualizing force working within the person.

4. He believes/trusts that each person has innate dynamism, power, force, drive to realize/attain its uniqueself-project, to become fully what he is meant to be.- One does not need special method and techniques to force this self-realization- Whatever external means used is meant just to assist this innate force.- Image: Entelechy of Aristotle

- Energia, as an inner force- Entelechy, as inner force which directs the self-actualization of a thing.- E.g. A Mango tree

- A seed is potential tree.- But there is inner force (entelechy) in the seed which directs the form “tree” to fully

determine the seed.

3. Marks of Genuine Dialogue

- Genuine Dialogue: a dialogue fulfilled in its being between two partners who have turned toward another in truth and who express themselves without reserved and are free of any form semblance

a. Fulfilled in its being- dialogue is fulfilled on the ontological sphere (in the sphere of being)- this means that dialogue happens when each participant proceeds from the level of their being and relates

to the other on the level of being- each one proceeds from the what he really is and not from what he wants to appear, seem.- Each tries to present to the others who he really is, gives others a share of what he really is.- There is basic openness of what one is from each participant; each should be unreserved

- Any invasion of seeming endangers and ruins the dialogue- If just one of the participants proceeds and relates on the level of seeming, the dialogue is ruined.

- E.g.: he who is ruled by the thought of his own effect as the speaker of what he has to speak, has a destructive power.

- Semblance as a destructive power to dialogue

b. Between partners who have turned toward another in truth.- By “imagining the real”, I make the other present or treat/consider the other as a whole, as a unique being,

and as the person that he is

5

- But the speaker does not only perceive the one who is present to him in this way; he receives him as his partner, and that means that he confirms this other being.

- In short, true turning to the other includes this confirmation, this acceptance.- Of course, such a confirmation does not mean approval, but no matter what I am against of the other, by

accepting him as a partner in a genuine dialogue I have affirmed him as a person.

c. Between partners who express themselves without reserved and are free of any form of semblance- The concrete manifestation of my proceeding and relating on the level of being and of my turning toward

the others in truth is my willingness to say/speak what is really in his mid about the subject of conversation.

- Each must be determined not withdraw when the course of the conversation makes it proper to him to say what he has to say.- One could not pre-arrange what he has to say, it is discovered only when one catches the call of the

spirit.- When this happens/at this time, what I have to say already has in me the character of something that

wishes to be uttered- And I must not keep it in myself for it bears

- in me the character of something that wishes to be uttered- for me the unmistakable sign which indicates that it belongs to the common life of the word.

- Speech is both nature and work- Nature: something that grows- Work: something that is made

d. Genuine Dialogue is Fruitful- Genuine dialogue (a dialogue fulfilled in its being, between partners who have turned to one another in

truth, who express themselves without reserve and are free of any form of semblance) is fruitful- in the sense:

- those involved will be seized in their depths and opened out by the dynamic of an elemental togetherness

- the interhuman sphere (I-Thou) opens out what otherwise remained unopened- not in the sense:

- achieving particular goals, objectives, projects- coming to specific agreement or contracts.

B. Human LoveA Phenomenology of Love by Manny Dy; A Phenomenology of Love by William Luijpen

Outline:

Introduction1. Love as An Appeal (Invitation) of the Other

a. An invitation/appeal to me to step out of myselfb. An invitation/appeal to be with, for the other

i. not an appeal of his/her facticityii. an appeal not identified with the explicit requestiii. appeal of his subjectivity, to share in his subjectivity

c. An appeal that brings new dimension to existence2. Love as a Yes to the Appeal

a. Yes of my subjectivityb. Embodied Yes to the Otherc. Yes to the Other for the sake of the otherd. A yes that bring self-fulfillment e. A yes that demands to be ratified by the other

3. Love as Creativity, as making to bea. Distinction between knowing and lovingb. Distinction between creativity of love and creativity of artistic workc. What is created in love:

i. Creation of the WEii. Creation of World into a WE-WORLD

Introduction

- In our previous discussion, Martin Buber describes the 2 fundamental ways, and levels of relating with our fellow men/women.- I-IT: Social Relation- I-THOU: Interhuman relation

- The latter relation is the relation that is authentically human and humanizing. - And Martin Buber clarifies the conditions and obstacles for this kind of relation:

- Seeming vs. Being- Speechfying vs. Personal Making Present- Imposition vs. Unfolding

- Genuine Dialogue takes place when these conditions are realized; and when there is genuine dialogue, the participants are disposed for the interhuman relation which takes place, happens as a gift, as a grace-event.

6

- There are several specific ways of realizing the I-Thou relation, of treating, encountering, relating with the other as a Thou. Among these possibilities, love is the most common and the deepest.

- Yet, love is the most often misunderstood concept.- Though it is most universal experience (a universal human phenomenon), it is the most commonly

misunderstood- Some misconceptions of what love is:

- Love as mere feeling- Love as act of possessing or being possessed- Love as equated with/identified with sex- Love as falling in love: you could not do anything but be seduced or overwhelmed by some power

beyond your control.- In this section, we will try to understand the nature and characteristics of authentic love. How?

- By phenomenological method, i.e.:- First, let us be aware and set aside or bracket our preconceptions, prejudices, stereotyping of love.- Then let us try to go back to what is originally given in any experience of love and reduce from the

different experiences what is essential to those love-experience, i.e. what makes those experience an experiences of love distinct from other experiences.

1. Love as An Appeal

- in any loving encounter, any experience of love, one experiences an appeal, an invitation, a calling forth that is addressed/directed to me.

- This appeal, invitation, calling forth goes out/come from the Other and is embodied in a word, a gesture, a look, a smell, etc.

- No matter in what form the appeal of the Other embodies itself, it is not an appeal from mere words, gesture, look, smell but from the Other as other.

- Now let us more specifically clarify what the appeal contains:- The other is appealing, inviting, calling me to what, for what?- Who is this other who appeals to me?- What makes me hear/notice the appeal?

a. An invitation/appeal to me to step out of myself

- in my daily life or at the first stages of my our development, I am:- centered on myself, enclosed in my shell or nest

- permeated with self-importance or pride- preoccupied with my concerns, interests, needs , projects- absorbed in my thoughts, feelings, etc.

- too absorbed, identified with my social roles, particular traits and characteristics such that I see and relate in relation to these roles, traits I have:- Seeing myself as a judge, I only see or face others simply as delinquent, lawyers, etc.

- When loving encounter takes place, there is an invitation, an appeal, a calling forth from the other mediated through signs, gestures, looks to go beyond, to step out, to break away- From my shell, my own nest- From my roles, from the roles I see in other.

- In each encounter with the other, there is this invitation/appeal/call. When this invitation is seen, perceived, heard, noticed, then there is a loving encounter or more properly the loving encounter has begun.

- But I could be blind, deaf to this invitation; I can myself to this appeal when I am too compulsive and too absorbed with myself and my roles.

- When this happens, I need a special attitude, a special disposition in order to perceive the appeal and this attitude itself implies that I have already been freed from my absorption and compulsion.

b. Appeal of the Other, to be with, for the Other- now, let us clarify what is in the other that invites me to step out of myself

i. Not an appeal of his/her facticity- Facticity:

- Refers to one’s givenness, what is already there, determined, structured- Refers to the already determined physical and spiritual qualities/attributes of the Other

- Physical traits- Temperament, psychological traits- Inclinations- Aptitude- Moral qualities

- What invites me to step out of myself is not these qualities and attributes even how attractive, pleasing and beautiful they are.

- Why?1. For these may call me to be near him (infatuation) but they are incapable of inviting me to step

out of myself.2. The invitation of the other to step out of myself remains even these qualities cease to attract. Love

would not be made impossible when these qualities fade away or are lost.3. As long as the other’s qualities in themselves speak to me, invite me, the invitation does not come

from the other as the other, as a person, thou, subjectivity.

7

ii. An appeal not identified with the explicit request- What invites me to step out is not the explicit request of the other, i.e. expression of the factual

situation for which provisions have to be made.- What he/she explicitly asks from me because of the situation in which he/she is in.- The request that he/she makes

- Why?1. Even if I respond to and satisfy the request, it does not mean that there is love, that I really step

out of myself, transcend myself for the Other. Maybe I just do it out of pity or just to get rid of him.

2. Even if I respond to that request and satisfy to that request, the other goes away very much dissatisfied as if I have not satisfied/responded to his actual request, appeal, invitation.

3. The appeal of the Other is more than his explicit request. The other does not only make an appeal but he “is” an appeal.

iii. An appeal of his subjectivity, to share in his subjectivity- What appeals, calls, invites me to step out of myself is HIS/HER SUBJECTIVITY:

- What stands over and above the qualities, attributes of the person, the role that he/she has.- The very depth of the person which could not be reduced to one of these qualities and aspect nor

the sum total of them- The very depth which is

- the original source of all these qualities, stamping them with uniqueness, the source- the original source of possibilities- the original source of initiative, determination.

- The attributes/qualities embody the subjectivity but could not be identified with it.- They point to something deeper, something that stands beyond from which the appeal comes from,

goes forth.- The request, what he explicitly asks is not what appeals to me but HE who makes the explicit request.- The subjectivity, the Other as other appeals to me to step out of myself for what?

- To share, participate in, to be for/with HIS/HER SUBJECTIVITY- This means to accept/consent, support, help in his/her self-realization, self-actualization.

c. An appeal that brings new dimension of my existence- we have mentioned at the beginning of our discussion that for me to perceive the appeal of the other, I

must already in some extent overcome my over too fascination with myself- yet on the other hand, it is precisely the appeal of the other to me that liberates me from my self pre-

occupation, egoistic existence, by revealing to me, opening me up to a new, unsuspected dimension of my existence.

- How does the other open me to this new, unsuspected dimension? What is this new, unsuspected dimension?- We grow in our awareness of the different dimensions of our existence? As we grow, we go deeper;

as we go deeper, we grow.- First level: Facticity - I am my facticity

- I who is a facticity am my different qualities, attitudes, roles and other determinations which I inherited from my past.

- Second level: Freedom/Subjectivity- I am more than my facticity because I am their bearer; and as subject, I have freedom:

- To annihilate, to transcend every form of facticity- To extend myself toward a not yet finished, to be realize unique self-project by being in the

world- Yet I always find myself again as the bearer of objective qualities, a filled-out file card, player of

role.- Third Level: Subjectivity for the Other (Intersubjectivity)

- The appeal of the other as other makes me see, reveals to me that my existence is an existence for, with the other

- The appearance of the other, the perception of the other's appeal makes me realize that the deepest aspect of myself is not only my subjectivity but my subjectivity for the other: my deepest self is self for the other, my existence is an existence for, with the other

- This appeal of the other brings a radical conversion/change to my self-realization of my unique self-project- I only become truly myself by realizing myself in the world for the other- I am here to realize myself in the world that others may live, that others may become what

they are meant to be.- I transcend my facticity for the sake of the other; I overcome my facticity through self-

realization in the world for the sake of the other, that others may live.

2. Love as a Yes to the Appeal of the Other

a. Yes of my subjectivity- the appeal of the other which proceeds from his subjectivity (not from his facticity nor be identified with

his/her explicit request) calls/invites me to step out of myself and to share in his subjectivity

8

- this appeal which brings me to an awareness of the deepest aspect of my existence demands a response, an appropriate response.

- The appropriate response is the response/yes of my subjectivity since the other appeals from his/subjectivity and appeals to my subjectivity- I should not respond simply from my facticity, from what I have but from my subjectivity, from what

I am; I do not only give what I have but what I am- I don’t simply give a piece of bread, a coin, a part of my time; nor simply play the role that he

needs at the moment, nor attain the quality/attributes that could help him- But I respond from what I am, from my subjectivity:

- I respond with the totality, unity, uniqueness of my life- I respond from the deepest aspect of myself: original source of my creativity, activity which

stamps all my activities, roles and attributes with uniqueness- I give the potentialities, my self-project for the good of the other.

- This response from my subjectivity:- Could never be forced by anyone on me, even by the other's appeal; it is an act of the WILL,

FREEDOM.- Is not a question of feeling for my subjectivity is something beyond, deeper than my feeling; it is

not determined by feeling or by external circumstances.- If I say yes to the appeal, i.e. give my subjectivity in freedom for the other, then this yes is known as

LOVE.b. Embodied Yes to other's Subjectivity

i. Yes to other's subjectivity- since the other's appeal is not an appeal of his facticity, my yes/response is not a response to his

faciticity: i.e., to his qualities, characteristics or determinable attributes/roles- love is not a yes to be with, for the other's facticity- it is not a matter of supporting, affirming, sharing the different qualities, attributes and roles of

the other- since the other's appeal is not identified with his/her explicit request, the Yes/Response to the appeal

of the other is not simply the material granting of that explicit request, granting of what other explicitly requests- to say yes to the appeal of the other as other does not necessarily mean that I give in to his/her

explicit request.- In some cases, I have to say no to his/her explicit request in order for me to say yes to his appeal

as a person, to say yes to his subjectivity.- Since the appeal of the other comes from his subjectivity and the appeal is to be with, for his

subjectivity, the yes of love is the yes to his subjectivity- To respond to the appeal of the other as other is to affirm, share, support his subjectivity

- His freedom- Self-realization of his unique self-project and possibilities- What he is meant to be.

ii. Yes to other as Embodied Subject is not sentimentality, romanticism

- the subjectivity of the other to which I say my yes is an EMBODIED SUBJECT- a subjectivity immersed in the body, in the world (I am my body-I have my body, being in the

world)- a subjectivity identified in some extent with his/her body- a subjectivity that could not be separated from his body, from the world, - a subjectivity that realizes, becomes itself in and through the body, the world.

- To say yes to his/her subjectivity involves, means:- Being conscious, taking care, doing something, affirming, supporting his body, his world, his

material life- Concretely this means:

- Giving him/her food, shelter, clothing- Building hospitals, road, other necessary infrastructure for humanization- Taming the river, develop medicine- Opening schools- Humanizing the economic, political, social structure

- All these one does in order that it may be possible for the other to be a subjectivity, a self,- Thus, to the other who is an embodied subject is not a pure sentimentality; it engages one to do

something concrete in the world, to accomplish something in the world, to make it more human.

iii. Yes to the Other is not permissiveness- Since the appeal of the other as other/subjectivity could not be identified with his/her explicit request,

to say to the appeal of the other as other does not necessarily mean that I say yes to any explicit request that he makes- to say no to his/her explicit request does not necessarily mean saying no to the Other- to say yes to his/her subjectivity, I need to go beyond what he/she requests; - I even sometimes need to say vehemently and strongly no to his/her request which clearly will

destroy/ruin his/her subjectivity - Saying to other's subjectivity does not mean saying yes

- to what he/she thinks as:

9

- Unique self-project:- Ultimate Reality/Value toward which he/she directs his/her life: - Ultimate Happiness

- Why? because what he/she chooses as his Self-Project, Ultimate Reality/Value, Ultimate Happiness is not always, is not necessarily his authentic self-project, not the Ultimate Reality/Value, Ultimate Happiness.

- For example, if he/she chooses to make himself, money, possessions, sex among others as his self-project, ultimate reality/value, ultimate happiness, then I am obliged to oppose him, to close this road for if necessary by force.

- This presupposes that:- I have true conviction about what true happiness is, what is the ultimate reality, what is an

authentic self-project: BEING FOR OTHERS, NOT IN HAVING- I cannot be indifferent nor content with what other thinks as his/her happiness.

c. Yes to the Other for the sake of the Other (Disinterestedness of Love)

i. The motive to say yes to the Other as other is not seek to one's own fulfillment, interest or advancement.- the motive/purpose of one’s loving-response is not to draw/get some advancement, advantages,

benefits or rewards for oneself from one's loving of the other- one who loves cannot possibly intend and try to gain something out of the love:

- to seek promotion- to gain some advantages- to satisfy some needs- to fulfill some ambitions- to fulfill to certain desire, dream- to realize one's unique self-project

- one who does so cannot keep his/her love pure; there is a betrayal of love, denial of love- e.g.: if a nurse who tenderly and attentively takes care of her patient because she wants to become

quickly as possible head nurse or to gain eternal reward for herself, the patient does not feel that he is really loved.

ii. The motive of love is not to dominate, to force or to possess the other.- If I love the Other, I do not intend to dominate, force or possess the other. I do not intend that:

- The other does things according to what I want, I like even if he does not choose or want it.- To make him/her go this way/destiny whether he/she wants it or not because that is really the

best/authentic way/destiny- Rather, I intent, I will, I support the other’s freedom, that the other himself/herself determines his own

action and being.- Concretely this means:

- I am not just satisfied that the other goes a particular way through the world, not even if that way is good, will lead him/her to authentic happiness, self-realization.

- I should desire/seek that he/she himself/herself - chooses that good way or avoid the bad way - realizes his/her destiny, self-project according to his/her own rhythm, dynamism.

iii. The Motive of love is YOU- To love the other is to love him/her because of him/her, for his/her own sake and not mine.- To love is to say yes to the other as other for his/her the sake and not mine (even at my expense)- I affirm, support the Other’s subjectivity for his/her own sake

- For the sake of his/her subjectivity itself- For the interest, advancement, realization unique self- This is the end in itself which could not be used simply/solely as means to some others.

- I support this end even at my expense: Pain, discomfort, even death

d. It is a yes that brings self-fulfillment- As we have discussed above, authentic love does not aim, intend, seek, wish one’s self-fulfillment and

self-realization, - Yet, love brings authentic self-fulfillment, self-realization

- I come to realize without at least directly intending it my unique self-project- I come to realize myself in my deepest dimension, being/subjectivity for, with the other

- In this sense, loving itself is the very fulfillment of my deepest being.- In other words, a human person goes forward to love the other and then he finds the fulfillment of his

personhood, provided this fulfillment is not the motive of his love.

e. It is a yes that demands to be received/ratified by the Other- Love wills, supports, affirms the Other’s subjectivity as a response to Other’s appeal- This willing, supporting, affirming of the Other’s subjectivity becomes only fruitful when the other

accepts/ratifies, freely consents the loving-response.- Though the lover cannot will that his love be not known, understood, accepted, and fruitful, he cannot

force his Yes, his offer, his response be accepted by the Other- The other is absolutely free to respond to say yes or no; he should make other make an absolutely free

acceptance and ratification of his/offer for love to be authentic.

10

- Thus, there is the risk of rejection, betrayal and consequently, one becomes entirely defenseless.- No doubt the experience of rejection is painful, and it will take time for the lover to recover himself from

his experience.- Nevertheless, the experience can provide him with an opportunity to examine himself and the emptying of

oneself brought about by rejection would allow room for development. In this sense, it is still an enriching experience

3. Love as Creativity, as making to be

- when love is received and reciprocated, love becomes fruitful in the sense that love:- makes the other be- creates the other

- let us clarify how does love creates the other, how is love creative

a. Distinction between Knowing and Loving- Knowing the other person is a necessary condition in loving the other but the two are different/distinct- In knowing,

- I just let reality be as it unfolds, unveils, unconceals before me- I let reality be by perceiving, respecting, and accepting it as it unfolds, unveils, unconceals before me- In letting reality be and in respecting and accepting reality, I am completely passive

- I do not do anything with reality as it unfolds, unveils before except to respect and accept it.- Thus, knowing is not a creative activity

- In Loving,- It involves letting be: perceiving, respecting, affirming the other as he/she unfolds, unveils,

unconceals before me- It also includes making the others be:

- Willing, choosing- Supporting- Assisting the Other’s- Fostering- Creating

- Subjectivity- Self-Project- Freedom- Self-hood- Etc.

b. Distinction between the Creativity of Love and Creativity of Artistic Work- Similarity between Creativity of Love and Creativity of Artistic Work

- In making an art work (just like sculpture), the artist does not just let the stone be a stone, or a wood be a wood

- He makes it be, he makes it into a beautiful sculpture. He realizes what is potentially in the wood, in the stone. Yet that potentiality could not have been realized without him.

- The same thing in love, I do not just let the other be. I also make the others’s other be.- Difference between Creativity of Love and Creativity of Artistic Work

- The other that I make to be in love is not an object, like stone (which is without freedom, subjectivity, self-project, etc.) but a person/subjectivity which has freedom, unique self-project and possibilities.

- Love creates the other in the sense that it makes the other be not as facticity but as subjectivity:- the person could never be fully in touch with his subjectivity and would never proceed from his

subjectivity unless he/she is loved by another.- Unique self-project and unique possibilities could not be realized without the love of another- His/her freedom as freedom from, to and for/with could never be realized with the love of

another.- But love creates the subjectivity of the other not by unilateral, causalistic or deterministic manner as

sculptor creates a statue out of a stone or wood.- Though there are some influences of the other on one’s subjectivity, the subjectivitity could never

be determined by the other without destroying it or corrupting it. - Unlike a stone which I could completely determine without destroying it, I could never

completely determine the other persons without destroying them as person, destroying them in their subjectivity.

- My affection, action, influence could only bear fruit, could only be creative, could make the other be if he/she accepts, ratifies my affection, influences.- E.g. in education:

- If the person studies what his teachers says he should study because his teacher says so and not because he wants or chooses to study, the teacher feels that he does not the other becomes a subjectivity, a person.

- If the person does study because he opts/chooses to study as he himself sees or at least trusts that there is some value in it, then person becomes more fully what is meant to be, he realizes himself on a level he would never have reached if he had been left alone.

c. What is created in love?- To answer this, let us have a very brief phenomenological descripti0on of the experience of being

loved- We come to describe this experience by answering this question: WHAT DOES THE OTHER MAKE

OF ME WHEN HE LOVES ME?

i. Creation of the I into a WE

11

- In his/her love (his breaking out of himself/herself to affirm, support, etc. my subjectiivity, my self-realization of my unique self-project), I am no longer alone in my subjectivity- I now become aware of my subjectivity as being loved, affirmed, accepted, supported by the

other.- I realize my unique self-project and possibilities and go forward to my destiny in the presence of

someone who accepts, affirms and makes possible this self-realization.- In short, I am not alone, and I am not doing it alone. I am with the other and I am doing it with

the other.- Consequently, I no longer feel the fear of being myself and the anxiety in trying to someone else.

But I acquire the feeling of security, of acceptance.

ii. Creation of the World into a WE WORLD- If one is unloved, the world

- is hell, - lonely- is resistant, opposes my self-realization- is cursed, hated by me.- E.g.: For children growing up unloved and maltreated, the world is cruel.

- If one is love, the world - Has a kind face- Shared world.- Becomes accessible to my self-realization- Is a homeland

C. Justice“In Search of Truth and Justice” by Gabriel Marcel

Outline1. Introduction

a. Purpose of the Articleb. Urgency and Importance of Waking Up from Spiritual Stuporc. Approach

2. Insidious Devaluation of the Important Concepts of Truth and Justicea. Partial Truth and Indolence in the Quest for the Truthb. Partial Truth leads to Apparent Justice

3. Authentic Justice as the Beginning and Sign of Lovea. Independence from Subjective Inclination/Affective Attractionb. Respect of the Person’s Inviolability

4. Authentic Justice in Relation to Truth: Justice Living in Trutha. Truth cannot be equated with the order imposed from withoutb. Truth cannot be equated with my moodsc. Truth refers to something on the plane of the sacred

1. Introduction

a. Purpose of the Article- to clarify the relationship between truth and justice in order

- to wake ourselves from spiritual sleep concerning truth and justice- to arouse in us the unique passion for justice and peace

b. Urgency and Importance of Waking Up from Spiritual Stupor- As things now stand,

- Many remain deaf to the irresistible appeal of truth and justice- No longer arouse us from apathy to perform deed of profound consequences, simply because

truth and justice of a sudden become suffused with irresistible appeal- Incapable of experiencing “violent” emotion assumed in the face of truth and justice- Right now, they evoke nothing more than a faint and muted echo

- Such by words (truth and justice) no longer mean anything to us- Those big words no longer make much sense in our day and age- Image: like inscription carved into the facade of a public building, we simply pass them by, no

more moved at the sight of them than we are by anything else degenerated into commonplace- Danger/Consequence:

- we are fated to perish in technocratic deliriumc. Approach

- Not discursive thinking- Discursive thinking on justice means:

- to gather from the works of philosophers (past and present), their considerations about justice or truth, and then in a work similar to their manipulate my findings so as to present some sort of resounding consensus.

- Why does he not adopt this approach?- Boring, incapable of waking us up from spiritual stupor

- But existential- Based on his own personal experience and on something abstracted from experience

12

- He would cite and clarify the experiences from which he has come to the questions of justice and truth:- Dreyfuss Affair- His fellow student getting into trouble by sending pacifist pamphlet to the front- French Communistic university professor was accused of conniving with the Algerian freedom

fighter.- Etc.

- Why?- The questioin of truth and justice as existing within the existential relation, within a drama that

arouses a unique passion

2. Insidious Devaluation of the Important Concepts of Truth and Justice

- in our time, we have reduced without being aware of it and its danger:- Truth to partial truth- Justice to apparent justice

a. Indolent in the Quest for Truth and Satisfied with Partial Truths- the different disciplines particularly the empirical sciences lead us to the discovery of a lot of things about

man and the world- there is generally the ability to search and the willingness to recognize/accept these truths discovered by

science- but truths of science are partial truths:

- we do not see any connection between them, - they seem like discreet facts and explanations, atomistic, pluralism of facts, - stratified thinking (of layers and boxes)

- Scientists find extreme difficulty to establish any kind of unity of these scientific knowledge. Responses/Consequences:- They leave to philosophers the difficult task- They little interest in this perilous task- General Indolence pervades our quest for truth

- General Indolence leads to FANATICISM/DOGMATISM AND SCEPTICISM - Instead of searching for the truth, it finds solace/comfort in any of the philosophical systems that have

been effected and take this system as THE TRUTH, outside of which there is no truth. E.g.: Marxism, Thomism, among others

- Infra-Scepticism- A scepticism that is even incapable of proceeding skeptically- Withdraws into a fog that stifles courageous initiative- Sense of responsibility is replaced by fundamental mistrust

b. Partial Truths leads to Apparent Justice- just as the increasing discoveries of scientific truths leads us to realize that they are simply partial

truths, - in the same way the increasing demand for justice by different unions, organized groups and by the

whole nation in our time leads us to assume that the manifest quest for justice is not in fact a search for authentic justice but partial/apparent justice

- In this quest for justice, justice is equated with- Partisan interests- Equity- “Price Lists”

- When this happens, we have an apparent justice but not an authentic justice

i. Justice equated with partisan interest- Partisan interest:

- Needs, demands of a particular group that are more or less acute, very important, urgent and even justified.

- Justice for some is reduced, equated, associated with the just demands and needs of a particular group. Justice is said to be obtained when the just demands and needs are obtained.

- For Marcel, isolated demands are not necessarily prompted by love or concern for and do not lead necessarily to genuine justice (i.e., that which just/fair to all, the common good).- In some instances, the just demand of a particular group might be injurious to the common

welfare, the welfare of society.- E.g.: granting of the labor group’s just demand for higher wages (not a question of minimum

wage) would eventually damage the general economy of the country and inflict injury on the general citizenry.

- Point of Marcel: Authentic/Integral Justice is not just a matter of granting of an explicit demand of a particular group- Justice is not obtained simply because the needs/interests of a particular group is granted and

simply because it is demanded by the group- Something more than just granting the demands and needs of particular group is needed in the

consideration of authentic justice- Sometimes, a particular group might even give up their rights/demands/needs so that authentic

justice might be achieved.

13

- Bottomline: question of justice is not just a question of partisan interest

ii. Justice equated with equity- Justice and Equity are equated:

- When there is equal or equitable distribution of goods and resources (just distribution), justice is obtained.

- Analogy: Mother dividing a cake equally to her children- The mother’s action could only be justified on practical ground:

- If she does not bother about equal distribution, there will be no end of quarreling- Therefore, it is better to play safe.

- This concession (to divide equally so as to avoid quarrel) has no ethical grounds- There are no further reasonable grounds for her precaution except to avoid quarrels among her

children- And it is not certain that there is reason to treat those in the table alike.- Other examples cited by Marcel to prove this point: Universal Suffrage

- as applied to the Illiterate/Insane, on the one hand, and doctor, public official on the other.- As applied to countries with his percent of illiteracy and to countries which are highly

cultured.- Thus, for Marcel, justice and equity have to be kept separate, have to be distinguished.

iii. Justice equated with “price list” of one’s abilities/accomplishment and failure- Courts of Justice as no more than and even worse than revenue offices

- Assess your liability and merit based on the data provided and the standing price list- But the charts hardly correspond to anything resembling a genuine feeling of guilt

- As a consequence, the judge is no longer recognized as a man of justice. And when respect is destroyed, justice itself is bound to vanish.

3. True/Authentic Justice as the Beginning of Love

- We could come only to authentic understanding of justice in the context of love not in context of:- Partisan interests- Equity- Tariff of Legal system

- Justice is authentic justice when it is the beginning, the minimum of love- There are two essential elements of justice as the beginning, minimum of love

a. Independence from Subjective Inclination, Affective Attraction- Justice requires/demands us to do things even for which

- we have no affective attraction, no subjective inclination to the other- we have a negative affective and subjective disposition to the other.

- E.g. cited by Marcel- Communist university professor was accused of conniving with the Algerian Freedom Front.- He was arrested, disappeared under suspicious circumstances.- There was a public demand:

- That those who pronounced the sentence on the professor should give a full explanation- That those responsible for his disappearance and death should be punished and the punishment

should be known to the public- The protest and accusation should come not only from those who approve of the ideology, behavior,

and actions of the professor, but also from those who were against them, even those who even found it repugnant.

b. Respect for the Inviolability of the Person- This needs to be emphasized: THE RESPECT FOR THE INVIOLABILITY OF THE PERSON

- There is in us an irresistible temptation to destroy a particular person (like to kill him/her, to extract admission from him by force, to destroy him/her in whatever way) simply because he/she is unarmed, different, a stranger and much more because he is an enemy.

- Justice is basically erecting a barrier, an obstacle between this temptation and the execution of this temptation.- This means that I will not do anything that would destroy the person in whatever way even with

the irresistible temptation:- Even with the claim that this is a necessity of war,- Even with the demand of the law, situation, circumstance- Even with strong subjective inclination and affection to destroy

- As human persons, we don’t only experience the appeal of love; we also experience the appeal of hate.- Love is the yes to the appeal of the other to accept, to will, support, to foster, to create his/her

subjectivity, his/her unique self-project and possibilities, his/her selfhood, his/her freedom. Here I choose to become a shepherd to the other

- Yet there is the opposite of love: Hatred- It is the yes to the appeal to destroy the other’s subjectivity, unique self-project, his/her selfhood,

his/her freedom. Here I choose to become a wolf to the other.- Thus, we experience ourselves both as wolf and shepherd to the other- Justice is the minimum demand of love

14

- The minimum demand for the acceptance, support etc. of the other consists in not permitting the wolf in me to destroy/devour the other

- The minimum of my yes to the other is not to destroy him/her- The fundamental human rights contain the minimum requirements/ the gauge/limit below which I will

already destroy the Other- Denial of the fundamental human rights is equivalent to the destruction of the person himself/herself

- Yes for the other is yes to the essence or deepest dimension of my existence. And the minimum requirement for me to live in the deepest dimension of my existence, for me to be authentically human is to do justice, to be just.

- If I dehumanize other people, I become less human.- If I humanize other people, I become more human.

4. Authentic Justice in Relation to Truth: Justice as Living in Truth

- Justice:- Living in the truth, according to the truth- Living on the plane of the Sacred, Holy- as Creative Testimony

- To live in truth, on the plane of the Sacred - is to conform our lives to the truth- is to bring oneself, one’s life, actions into agreement with the truth

- What is the truth to which we have to conform our lives, to which we have to bring our lives and action into agreement?

a. The Truth cannot be equated, identified with the order imposed by Totalitarian State, human institutions or the legal system- To live in the truth is not simply conforming our lives with the order particularly with the legal orders of a

given society, with the societal order.- To live in the truth, sometimes one needs to defy any order imposed from without.

b. Truth cannot be identified with one’s moods and interests- one’s moods and interests refer to:

- one’s personal moods and interests- moods and interests of one’s group

- to live in the truth is not simply an agreement with oneself

c. Truth refers to something on the plane of the Sacred:

i. Transcendent/Spiritual/- Something that is totally beyond yourself- Something which defies and resists any objectification or identification with mundane realities, with

any reality that we could definitely perceive and conceive.- Could not be identified with any group interest, with any order, ideology, system or “Isms”- Could not be confused with humanity as a totality (positivistic tendencies). Why?

- One could not add men and women like stones, blocks of wood or ideas and eventually come to “humanity”, “man”

- Besides, the idea of “humanity” presupposes divine understanding and within this or in the framework of divine understanding, it has an appointed place, significance and meaning.

ii. Absolutely Stable and Consistent- Not changing, unstable in itself unlike our interest, moods, order, institutions- Nevertheless, it has to express itself in us and cannot be stifled.

iii. That which we could not be indifferent- Truth which is transcendent, stable and consistent manifests in us in a form of unconditional demand.

- Demands from us, appeals to us o bear witness to no matter who we are- Demands a response that is unconditional even at the expense of one’s self

- The demand is so strong, persistent - that we could not deny it though we could stifle it- that is stronger than any appeal that we could identify within the world

- This does not necessarily mean that the demand presses forward into our consciousness in entire universal character

- Most probably this transcendent, stable and consistent demand will only take shape when a particular situation demands it or when an action is required, regardless of the personal risk involved.

d. Illustrations/Examples of Justice as Testimony to the Truth on the Plane of the Sacred

i. A member of French Council of State testifying in behalf of an alleged prominent German collaborator, Marshall Petain

15

- Marshal Petain: head of the French government “created” by the Germans who had occupied France in World War II

- After the war, those who collaborated with the Germans were tried for war crimes and treason and Marshall Petain was the principal accused in the case

- During the trial, a member of the French Council of State who was in direct contact with Marshall Petain during the War felt personally obliged to speak in the marshal’s behalf whatever it might cost him personally and even though it was a lost cause- Council:

- Made up of 400 trained lawyers; the highest council that advised the government on legal matters

- Government’s main goal was to prosecute and punish the collaborators and traitor- His testimony would not make any difference in the acquittal of Marshal Petain- It would even mean great personal cost on him.

- In fact, after the trial he was suspended for two (2) years and consequently he and his large family were forced to live under most difficult material conditions.

- Why did he do it?- We might say that he was following his conscience and this would seem superficial to us.- Nevertheless, this points to the intimate relation between genuine truth and authentic justice:

- If he had refrained from testifying out of fear and prudence, he would have acted contrary to the spiritual character of the truth and at the same time he would have committed an injustice.

- But, the man lived according to the truth on the plan of the holy, otherwise he could not have been impelled to act as he did.

ii. 4,500 French resistance fighters in World War II who were executed in Mt .Valerian

- In December morning, there was an act of reparation by a group of Germans at the Mt. Valerian where 4,500 French resistance fighters were executed.

- During this celebration, Marcel realized the just cause that this freedom fighters had died for and where did this just cause come from.- Not from religious convictions (i.e. convictions arising from their particular religion)

- They have different religious convictions- Far from unanimous in their religious convictions

- Not from any “isms” or specific doctrines:- They held different and even contradicting views.- Consequently, if this were the case, some of the resistance fighters would have fought in the

name of truth, others in the name of error.- Rejection

- Though all commonly were for rejection, this was much too little to lead die to martyrdom- The truth that die for, the just cause they were fighting for was more than rejection

- Though all these people differ so much from one another, yet there was a group illumined by the same light and united by a common brotherly bond.

- What was this light?- The idea that humanity had to be restored to its dignity

- It was because of this that they fully and completely stood behind rejection- But the light in this case is invisible because it is source of light; it makes seeing possible:

- Seeing in the sense of proper evaluation of the concrete options available to us and irresistible.

16