MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Competenc
Intersubjectivity: Authentic Dialogue
y and Accepting Differences
6
In the long run and on your own, you will be able to understands
intersubjective human relations.
At the end of this module, you will be able to:
a) realize intersubjectivity requires accepting differences and not to imposing others;
b) appreciate the talents of persons with disabilities and those from the underprivileged
sectors of society; and
c) explain that authentic dialogue means accepting others even if they are different from
themselves;
Initial Task: Capture and define me?
Direction: Ubunto is a South African philosophy focusing on how people from
allegiances and relate to one another. It is their self-assurance in knowing that they
are all connected as one. With this understanding, they do not need feel threatened
or discriminated by others, or as we commonly heard “I’m Better Than You”
because it is their confidence in who they are that eliminates their need to compete
with one another. Thus, look at the picture below and answer the following
questions?
[[[
What do you see in the pictures?
I saw a 2 persons with an disability but the they still to be happy and they enjoy
their freedom without doubt, because god is with them god provides happiness
just follow your heart. disability is not a hindrance. sin is more of a barrier than
a disability.
Do you know people who have disabilities and underprivileged?
How
do you deal with them?
I respect them, treat like a human but i treat them as a special person because
their situation is not as easy, as ours. they need us to guide them
Explain the importance of recognizing the underprivileged
1|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Underprivileged from disadvantaged families need our help. Raised in poverty,
they get exposed to the harshest realities of life. Underprivileged are often
denied their right to emotional, physical and social development.
Unlocking of Difficulties
1. Intersubjectivity – It is the interaction between the self and
other is related to the philosophical concept of
intersubjectivity, which is awareness and understanding
among persons.
2. Authentic Dialogue –
It means accepting
others even if they
are different from
you.
Lecturette
Overview: Intersubjectivity
We all live in the world surrounded by different people with different
background and personality. Relating with others and settling our differences is not
always an easy task but it’s a task that we have to embrace since we all desire to
live peacefully in a world that we shared with them no matter how different they are
to us. Since we, also, benefit from living with others, like security and
companionship, we tried to establish harmonious relationship with them. Some
could say that relationship is a blessing but, perhaps, this is not true for others who
find it more of a curse. Some relationship last longer and touches more lives, while
other relationships ended even before the relation takes root. Trust or suspicion,
authentic communication or
[Link] lies and
dishonesty, unconditional love or self-interest
are just some of the possible causes of strengthening or breaking human
relationship. How could we achieve and maintain good and fulfilling relationship
with others who are different from us?
In this module, 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 selfish ends. Intersubjectivity is a kind of relationship which
considered a subject-to-subject or person-to-person way of relating. Jurgen
Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action will inform us the authentic form of
communication which would be instrumental to the setting up of intersubjective
relationship. Martin Buber’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
2|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Other elucidates not so much on relationship 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 find its solution on how we see, accept,
and treat the “others”. Intersubjective relationship, therefore, aims in helping
individuals grow together as authentic human persons.
Lecturette
The Phenomenology of Intersubjective Relationship
According to Mind of Some Great Philosophers…
In this part, I will present
some theories related to our
topic in the persons of
Jurgen Habermas, Martin
Buber and Emmanuel
Levinas.
A. Jurgen Habermas’s
Theory of Communicative
Action
Mutual understanding is an important telos
[Link] (end) of any conversation be it a simple
q=intersubjectivity+and+authentic+dialogue+philosop
dialogue or an argumentation. Thoughts
are refined, relationship is deepened, trust in others and confidence in oneself are
built through communication. When people converse bridges are constructed,
strangers become friends, and individuals turn into a society of people. Life-
experiences, however, proves that this is not always the case. In fact, it is common
to see individuals with different backgrounds such as way of thinking, believing, and
behaving could easily come into conflict when they communicate. To avoid arriving
at that point, Jurgen Habermas introduce a path leading to mutual understanding
through his theory of communication.
Jürgen Habermas, a known German sociologist and philosopher, is perhaps
best recognized for his theory on communicative rationality. In “What is Universal
Pragmatics?” found in his book Communication and the Evolution of Society, he
identifies and reconstruct “universal conditions of possible understanding. He, first,
introduces various forms of action that human beings use like conflict, 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 that must occur in conversation to
achieve mutual understanding.
1. Comprehensibility – It pertains to the use of ordinary language. If the
meaning of a word or statement is defined by the ordinary language in
which both speaker and hearer are familiar with then, for sure,
understanding will be achieved, especially, if the ordinary language is the
native language of both speaker and hearer. This means to say, that for
3|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Habermas, the use of common language in which two individuals in a
dialogue are familiar with is an important instrument towards
understanding.
2. Truth - Refers to how true the uttered statement in reference to objective
facts. If customer asks a waiter for a glass of water, the request will surely
be understood and it will be granted. But if a customer asks for a
“Kryptonite Salad” in which the restaurant doesn’t actually serve and the
waiter is not familiar with, the request will surely be rejected for confusion
and misunderstanding between the customer and waiter will surely take
over.
3. Truthfulness - Pertains to the genuine intention of the speaker which is
essential for the hearer’s gaining trust. Sincerity in relationship is an
important aspect in achieving mutual understanding and it is assessed by
considering the congruence of the expressed meaning and the speaker’s
agenda. Whenever other’s give advice, we appreciate them when they
clearly showed their care through consistency in their words and actions;
while, we are repulsed by those whose actions contradict their words.
Hence, it is also important that we have a genuine intention while
conversing with others in order that we gain their trust. For trust breaks
down barriers of suspicions but nurtures and deepens relationship.
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 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.
4. Rightness - pertains to the acceptable tone and pitch of voice and
expressions. Filipinos, generally, are intimidated, irritated, and even
threaten when someone talk with a high pitch or a loud voice as in a
shouting manner. While low and gentle voice make us calm and relax and,
in certain situation, make us recognize the sincere words of the others.
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 find 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 significant factors for authentic dialogue to occur leading to better relationship.
Habermas believes that when actors do not violate any of the validity claims in their
speech acts, it 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 influence 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 conflicts, avoidance of
misunderstanding, and establishment of intersubjective relationship. Living with
others having different characters, conviction, and thinking, it’s common for
conflicts 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
4|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
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 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; 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 affiliation 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.
B. Martin Buber’s I-Thou Relationship
The onset of industrialization and the growth of large urban cities, for Martin
Buber, has dehumanized the modern man by converting him from subjects into
objects through the instrumentality of the machine as “machines which were
invented in order to serve men in their work were no longer, like tools, an extension
of man’s arm but man became that extension doing the bidding of the machines”.
The way man treats the machine as an object becomes also his way of treating the
other human person. To radically break from these prevailing attitudes in order to
establish an ethical principle on human relationship anchored on the dignity of the
human person, Buber introduces his I-Thou philosophical theory.
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’s Two Modes of Existence
1. EXPERIENCE - (the mode of ‘I–it’), is the mode that modern man almost
exclusively uses. Through experience, man collects data of the world,
analyses, classifies, and theorizes about them. This means that, in terms of
experiencing, no real relationship occurs for the “I” is acting more as an
observer while its object, the “it” is more of a receiver of the I’s
interpretation. The “it” is viewed as a thing to be utilized, a thing to be
known, or put for some purpose. 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. 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, relationship is never established. Only when there is
an I-I encounter can there be an experience.
2. 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 specific, isolated qualities, but
5|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
engage in a dialogue involving each other’s whole being and, in which, the
‘other’ is transformed into a “Thou” or “You”. This treating the other as a
“You” and not an “it” is, for Buber, made possible by “Love” because in love,
subjects do not perceive each other as objects but subjects. Love, for Buber,
should not be understood as merely a mental or psychological state of the
lovers but as a genuine relation between the loving beings. Hence, for Buber,
love is an I-Thou relation in which both subjects share a sense of caring,
respect, commitment, and responsibility. In this relationship, therefore, all
living beings meet each other as having a unity of being and engage in a
dialogue involving each other’s whole being. 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
selfish ends. The human person, thus, becomes alienated in this It-world. 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 the exclusion of an ‘encounter’ or
on the attitude of relating with things (I-It) rather than relating with persons (I-
Thou). 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 fulfilling
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. In the I-Thou relation between the individual and God, there is a unity of
being in which the individual can always find 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. 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.
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. 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 but find
himself fulfilled and complete in that relation.
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.
C. Emmanuel Levinas’ Face of the Other
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 infinite 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
6|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
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 Infinity: 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 abstract “Being”. 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. 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. It is in this case, that the other’s “otherness” is radically negated. 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 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”. 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. This responsibility for the
other is immediate and not only a matter of perception. This “Other” that Levinas
refers to are the stranger, the widow, the destitute, and the orphan to whom the
self is obligated. This reveals that Levinas’ concept of responsibility to the “Other”
has preference for those who are poor, weak, and marginalized by the society.
Thus, for Levinas, doing something for the “Other” and fulfilling one’s responsibility
even to the point of sacrificing one’s life for the sake of the “Other” is the
identification mark of one’s humanity and spirituality.
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 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 infinite 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
7|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
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.
BIBLE VERSE:
“cognovimus et credidimus
caritati.”
1 John 4:16
Assessment
Direction: In your own words, state what is intersubjectivity for each of the
following philosophers. After doing so, explain how essential and in need of it
is our society today
Jurgen Habermas
Jurgen Habermas introduce a path leading to mutual understanding through his
theory of communication, yes its true that Mutual understanding is an important
end of any conversation, they described about mutual understanding, because now
a days specially in the new generation, it is difficult to achieve mutual
understanding, because there is a lot of people that traitor of promise, friendship,
relationship, to built a strong relationship with others is always trust is most needed
when you want to know on that stranger, to get a nice conversation or
communication of each other, it also need an respect from his/her background
specially the way he believes, to get an nice communication, be truthful because
this is the most important of conversation to get a mutual understanding.
8|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Martin Buber
Martin buber was they wrote a book which is in titled authentic human existence
manifests in genuine dialogue with each other, with the world, and even with God.
Buber argues, has a place and a function in human life, It establishes the world of
experience and sensation, which arises in the space between the person and the world
by its own accord, and I–Thou establishes the world of relationship, which asks of each
person a participatory intimacy.
Emmanuel Levinas
Emmanuel Levinas
They stated about the face of others, in which is they want to make a message
about to person to have equal vision, that when you communicate to person, we
must to apply to show his or her values and belief to accept them, because
nowadays, if you are different in their eyes, it seems like they will not accept you,
judgment comes first, than to know the person, this is common problems of the
society, even you’re different you’re not belong to them,we’re human we must to
live with equal and balance society, to communicate equal and with acceptable as
human, we live with unity we are not live to different.
9|Page
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Criteria
Content- 20 points
Philosophical notions- 10 points
Total – 30 points
Lecturette
Accepting our Differences,
Accepting Ourselves
We are all different! This seems
like an obvious statement, but it is often
the obvious tatements which require the
most scrutiny and investigation,
If we humbly accept that ourexactly
world-
because they are the ones we take
view is lacking, listen to other world viewsleast
time observe
and to consider.
other ways of life we may
actually expand our understanding and
[Link]
constructEachaone of uspicture
wider lives, therefore,
of reality. a
accepting-ourselves/
fragment it
However, of seems
the human
we areexperience.
not able toThedo
reality
that, since of a our president
differenceswill be differenttothan
continue thatconflicts
create of a miner,
and toor resonate
a journalist,
withthea
experiences
general lack of tolerance,
a female will which be different thanthrough
is expressed that of criticism
a male, aandpoor person against
mockery than a
rich. Butwho
anyone whoever
thinks we are, none
differently thanofus,
us not
experiences
to mentionthe full spectrum
extreme examples of –human
which
reality. Therefore,
unfortunately any world-view
are becoming we mayand
less extreme havemoreis incomplete.
the norm – Itofisviolence
partiallyagainst
based
on truth,
those whoand have partially on ignorance.
a different world-view.
Why do we keep fighting about the different ways we wish to live our lives? In
the age of social media we have a world wide forum for dialogue and
communication and yet it seems that while there are many speakers, we have less
dialogues and more bi-sided monologues, where no one listens to or learns from the
other, but just shouts their own view louder.
Our world is facing many problems. If we won’t be able to listen and
harmonize the different approaches we have, we will not be able to find the creative
solutions necessary to confront these real and immediate challenges.
In this context some questions come to mind:
Are we quick to judge?
Do we accept the other person’s right to a different world-view?
Do we really understand the other person’s world-view or we just have
a caricature of it in our mind? How prejudiced are we by the media and
other influential factors?
Accepting our differences, also emphasizes the importance of being
authentic. We cannot
accept others if we don’t accept ourselves. At times we are afraid of being who we
are, because we fear that we will not be accepted. But if we are busy trying to be
somebody else, if we are busy trying to be what we think is expected of us, we
cannot contribute our piece of the puzzle.
To be authentic does not necessarily mean to be original, extravagant or
rebellious. It just means to be ourselves, and there is nothing more original than
that. But in order to be ourselves, we must take the first step of every philosophical
journey: know yourself. Who am I and what is really me? and what parts of myself
are based on social conventions, fears and habits, among others? The harmony
our society needs so much, begins with us accepting ourselves and
accepting others. This is not an easy task, but it is worth it.
Assessment
10 | P a g e
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Direction: The concepts presented are visible factors why humans are
disconnected and in conflict. So, what do you think that can hamper human beings
from establishing authentic dialogue and accepting differences and how are you
going to mediate it? Write your philosophical thoughts inside the box.
For me for being good, a good man can accept you without any exchange, if human
deserve balance and concrete society there to problems to disconnect the
relationship of each other, I will put the human to learn about the importance of
life, about the importance of feeling of one another, words can also kill, not only
on the physical killing, face the world with equality to bring one another to have
a better communication.
Lesson Reflection:
As an Ignacian Marian student, I learned that… how to have a better
communication of one another without hating or doubt, how to live with
equal society, with respect and acceptance of one another.
Criteria
Content- 20 points
Philosophical notions- 10 points
Total – 30 points
Final Task:
Journal Writing Entry # 1:
Why is it important to establish authentic dialogue? How will it help you in your
personal development? Cite one specific example on how you can apply your
learning or self-discovery in real life scenario.
Authentic dialogue enables individuals to acknowledge that they each are part of a
greater whole, that they naturally resonate with others within this whole and that the
whole is, indeed, greater than the sum of its various parts. For example I live in
mountain I am aeta or tribe, I want to school in university which is city, I have a dark
skin, and my outfit is different from them, so how can people can respect me ? that’s
why the three philosophers indicate the moral values of communication on how you to
face it with acceptance and with judge, because this is the common problems of the
world, worlds is full of judgement.
11 | P a g e
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Note: The rubric below will be utilize on this activity.
Rubric for Essay and Journal Writing
12 | P a g e
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
References:
13 | P a g e
MODULE 6
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Curtis J. (2016). Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action.
Boultwood (2015). Martin Buber’s “I and Thou (Ich und Du)” Retrieved from
[Link]/[Link]/intersubjectivity
Prepared by:
Ronald P. Ramos, MAED
Instructor
Checked by:
Raymond W. Dela Cuesta, LPT. MAED
SHS Academic Coordinator
Noted by:
Eleanor C. Aguillon, MAED
SHS Focal Person
14 | P a g e