|CHAPTER V|

Intersubjectivity and Creative Fidelity

INTRODUCTION Dasein and Human Situation

“Anyone can achieve their fullest potential, who we are

might be predetermined, but the path we follow is always of EMBODIED SUBJECT AS DASEIN
our own choosing.”
- Martin Heidegger, Being and Time Human beings as Daseinmeans we are beings thrown into
the world. Etymologically speaking, Dameans “there,” and
As a departure from the traditional understanding of the Sein means “being,” hence, “being there.” The “there” can
human person as body and soul, it is interesting to know that be understood as an environment, situation, world, space, or
the human person is understood as an existential subject or even objects and people. As the famous Filipino saying
an embodied subject in contemporary philosophy. Embodied goes, “Ikaw ang mundo ko”oran ideal one,“Sa eskwela,
subjectivity is a reminder that a human person does not simbahan, at tahanan lang umiikot ang mundo ko.” “Dasein
appear to others as a mere body but as a self-revealing is never ‘proximally' an entity which is free from Being-in,
subject. This revelation of the self can be witnessed through but which sometimes inclines to takeup a
actions, determined decisions, the creation of the ‘relationship'toward the world. Taking up relationships
personality, essence out of one's freedom, etc. Thus, one's toward the world is possible only because Dasein, as Being-
nature is notfixed, just like objects. As human beings, we in-the-World, is as it is” (Heidegger,Being and Time,12:
can choosewithin the limit of our finitude, but this limitation 24). This kind of idea was introduced by the German
will not stopus from creating ourselves. philosopher Martin Heidegger.

Furthermore, we are not just living side by side with others FACTICITY AND TRANSCENDENCE
in the world as objects do, but we are living beings capable
of living with others and making sense of our existence with Heidegger would argue that there are things about human
them. The reason to make sense of our existence enkindles existence that are not controlled by our free will and intellect
with our natural tendency to act, feel, encounter, relate, and and which we cannot fully comprehend. For instance, we do
connect with others. Therefore, our existence as human not know why we cannot choose our parents, race, gender,
beings does not isolate us in our world but gives us etc. before we are born. As students, why can't we choose
breathing space to make meaningful experiences out of it. our classmates, teachers, or even classrooms? These are
Moreover, these meaningful experiences could be our some facts and happenings in our human existence that we
authentic interpersonal relationships with others. These are not in control of. Heidegger calls it, facticity.It refers to
relationships show the characteristics of our social or the conditions given to us and fixed from without. It means
intersubjective nature. Ina nutshell, intersubjectivityis one of that there are features that are beyond our control.
the elements that make our existence meaningful and worth Therefore, ourbirthdate, gender, race, and even inability to
living. It is an element that makes us realize that we are not choose our parents, teachers, classmates, etc., belong to
solitary beings but relational beings in the world such.

However, in the revelation and expression of our natural However, human beings are not only limited to recognizing
tendency to relate and encounter others, we should also be both things and people but are most essentially capable of
mindful that relationship in all forms comes with connecting with those objects and relating to those
commitment and responsibility. Our commitments to others individuals encountered. We are innately relational beings.
require us to be creative and not static. It is not just about This means that we do not only recognize the things and the
surviving a relationship but about creating the relationship. people in our worldbut, more so, connect and relate with
Moreover, it is our responsibility not to run away from them. This is what we call transcendence. This refers to a
whatever situations our relationships have to offer. It is a condition of our existence that has been decided or created
responsibility that comes naturally to us, the commitment by us. For instance, we do not choose our parents, yet we
that creates and sustains no matter what. still respect and love them. We do not choose our classmates
and teachers, yet we still become friends with them.
This chapter will focus on these essential aspects of human
persons as existential and relational subjects. Furthermore, it For Heidegger, people are subjects that we must relate to,
does not talk only about how we appear but also about how and objects are things to be utilized. The former implies an
we act toward others, how we establish, sustain, and respond establishment of meaningful and authentic relationships,
to our relationships with our parents, family, friends, while the latter suggests either being ready-at-handor
classmates, teachers, etc. Therefore, the philosophers will present-at-hand. Hence, “So far as Dasein is at all, it has
guide us as we delve and emerge ourselves into their Being-with-one-another as its kind of Being”
philosophies and relate them with our reality (Heidegger,Being and Time26: 163).

Hence, human beings, as Dasein, pertain to two conditions.

PHILOSOPHY First, we must recognize that certain features are beyond our
| Lesson 1 | control. This means that we are being thrown into it with no
 |CHAPTER V|
Intersubjectivity and Creative Fidelity

access to freedom. Second, we must realize that human

beings, as subjects, are innately relational beings. This Havinga body, on the other hand, is understood as the
means that we always have this innate tendency to establish possession of the body. It means that we own our bodies as
relationships with our fellow human beings. In short, we we own things. We understand our body as a possession
have the capacity and ability to transcend our own facticity because our subjectivity appears to other people as a body.
There is a gap or distance between the subject and the body.
The body appears to be an instrument. This means that the
PHILOSOPHY body is just an extension of the subject. For instance, a
| Lesson 2 | stethoscope is just an extension of the doctor's power to
Am I My Body or Just Having a Body? cure. The doctor and thestethoscope are not identical. We
cannot identify the body with the person. To consider the
body as an instrument is to consider it like a stethoscope
MY BODY AND A BODY external to the person.

Human beings, as mentioned in our previous discussion, are Whenever we look at our bodies in the mirror, we focus on
relational beings. It means that a human person, by nature, our physical qualities. We may say, “My eyes are
would establish a relationship. However, a relationship gorgeous,” “I have a sexy body,” “My skin is very rough,”
entails mutuality in terms of respect, understanding, love, etc. It means that we see our body as a distant thing, an
loyalty, care, patience, etc.—most essentially, mutual object. We appear and act to each other as a body, so we
recognition of presence as persons and not objects. Thus, to make sure that our body is presentable and lovable to others.
arrive at such an authentic relationship, we should The body is understood and considered as a body, that is, a
understand the notion of embodied subjectivityfrom French body-object. To consider a body as an object is to consider it
Philosopher Gabriel Marcel with his book titled Being and as something scientifically known,labeled, and categorized.
Havingas a paradigm We can study its parts, analyze, manipulate, and use it just
like any other object. Therefore, a body-object can be
On one hand, beingmy body refers to the body as the person. anybody's body.
It means that there is no gap or distance between the body
and the subjectivity. What appears to other people is not just In conclusion, authentic relationships among humans can
a mere embodiment but a person. If we express ourselves only be possible if we treat each other as subjects and not as
through our embodiment, we cannot be distinguished from mere objects, just like treating our embodiment as a person.
it. One's body is not external to a person because the body It is only through this understanding that we can eliminate
is, in fact,oneself. Embodiment here is understood and the idea of utilizing and manipulating others for our egoistic
considered as my body, that is, a body-subject. If the body is interests. It is only through this understanding that we can
understood as the person, then the body should not be used achieve a humane environment that is grounded in authentic
nor manipulated. In the Filipino context, we would say, “I relationships
am gorgeous” and not “my face is gorgeous.” Here, we can
say that “I am my body.” This kind of understanding teaches
us to consider our body not as ours (having) but as us PHILOSOPHY
(being). There is an intimate relationship between the body | Lesson 3 |
and the subject. This intimacy is the one that puts Intersubjectivity and Dialogue
undefinabledistance between the two. Likewise, this relates
to a principle on our notion of intimacy between best
friends, family members, and even our intimate relationship INTERSUBJECTIVITY
with God. For Gabriel Marcel, intimacy is a moment
wherein realities are being shared. It means that there is It is a fundamental notion that human persons are not
nothing that you hide from each other. That is why, if there solitary beings. This means that a person always lives one's
is no intimacy between the body and subjectivity, then one's life together with other human beings. Fellow human beings
body wouldbe anybody's body and would be like any might be our family,relatives, friends, neighbors, classmates,
“body.” Intimacy suggests that people should realize churchmates, teachers, and the like. This world becomes a
andconsider the bond that exists between the self and the shared world through this innate reality of interpersonal
body. According to Marcel, “My body is mine insofar as for relationships. Likewise, when one person enters into an
me my body is not an object, but rather, I am my body” intersubjective relationship, that person shares the world
(Marcel, Being and Having, 123). There will be no avenue with another person and vice versa. That is why when the
for the self to use or manipulate one's body because there is sharing of worlds happens, the relationship becomes deep
a recognition thatthe body is also the person and not an and mutual. Thus, in an intersubjective relationship, a
object. Hence, “to say that I am my body is to negate, to person not only fulfills one's call to be human to others
deny, to erase that gap which, on the other hand, I would be but,most importantly, values this kind of relationship.
postulating as soon as I asserted that my body was merely
my instrument” (Ibid.). INTERSUBJECTIVITY
 |CHAPTER V|
Intersubjectivity and Creative Fidelity

manipulation and abuse reign. Second, technical dialogueis

As discussed above, authentic human relationships are only described as objective understanding. This kind of dialogue
possible if we treat each other as subjects and not as objects. commonly happens in conferences, academic lectures, and
This means that relationships happen only among subjects, the like. There might be mutuality in this kind of dialogue
and we only have connections with the world's objects. That but only at the technical level. This dialogue is only at the
is why if we objectify other people, there is no relationbut technical level because it seeks to achieve a shared
only connection. Martin Buber, a Jewish existential understanding and knowledge in both parties but not
philosopher, would differentiate it as an “I- relationships. Lastly, genuine dialogueis commonly
Thourelationship,” subject to subject, and “I-Itrelationship,” understood as a humane dialogue wherein sincerity,
that is, subject to object. presence, sharing, mutuality, availability, and fidelity are
manifested. Through this dialogue, all forms of relationship
TheI-It relationship is described as the subject-to-object aregradually developed, strengthened, and grounded.
relationship. It can be understood as objects like pencils,
dresses, food, or places. However, a relationship is Buber adds that authentic dialogue is much more essential
impossible in the purview of I and It. In the reality of I-It, and sincere in our relationship withthe Eternal Thou, God.
there is no unity in each other's being but only distance. Our sincere prayers can be a form of our genuine dialogue
Here, the subjectfocuses only on the specifications of the with God. It is a divine encounter with His actual being.
things and isolated qualities like color, shape, beauty, This actual being means that the Eternal Thou is by Himself,
etc.Therefore, the focus is on utilization, manipulation, and unchanging. For humans, there is always the possible
domination and never in relation. simultaneous interplay of the I-Thou relationship to the I-It
relationship and vice versa. However, with God, there is no
I-Thourelation is described as the subject-to-subject such thing as a potential substance of His being. There is
relationship. This kind of relationship is an interpersonal only actual and constant, Thou.
relationship. It is a person-to-person relationship. Hence, the
I-Thou relationship is not a meeting wherein one keeps a
distance from the other, but an encounter wherein realities PHILOSOPHY
are shared and unified. For example, when your parents are | Lesson 4 |
engaged in a misunderstanding but still respect eachother as Creative Fidelity and Commitment
husband and wife, it depicts that both the I and the Thou are
dialogically involving each other'swhole being. It is an
encounter of shared realities
FIDELITY, CONSTANCY, AND PERSEVERANCE
Moreover, as we consider our Thouas persons and subjects
with whom we have genuine relationships and encounters, In our previous discussion, we have mentioned that human
there is no chance that we consider them as objects. As beings have the tendency and possibility of having a
Buber states,“If I face a human being as my thouand say the simultaneous interplay of I-Thou relationship to I-It
primary word I-Thouto him/her, he/she is not a thing among relationship and vice versa because humans are changing
things and does not consist of things”(Buber,I and Thou, 8). beings, unlike the Eternal Thou.That is why, in this topic,
Manipulation and utilization are violations of our I-Thou Marcel poses the problem of constancy in the context of
relationships. We should not forget that our relationship fidelity. Not so longago, we asked, “Meron pa bang
with the Thoudepends on our realization that the otheris forever?”
always a subject. Finally, even strangers are considered as
Thou,even though we do not have a relationship with them This famous question catches our attention and reality
because they are also subjects. because of the problem of the constancy of commitment,
perseverance, availability, and hope posed by fidelity.
NOTION OF DIALOGUE Constancy means unchangingover time. It is calling us to be
courageous and persistent in our fidelity while being
All forms of relationship that are guided by the I-Thou persevering. Thisholds us to stand firm to what has been
relationship are grounded on dialogue. Dialogue for Buber started despite the challenges that hinder us from going on.
goes beyond words and communication. For him, it is the Asan analogy, it is like a Narra tree that experiences drought
life of relation. It signifiesa deeper meaning. Accordingly, during an El Ninoperiod.This experience makes the Narra
there are three kinds of dialogue, namely, Monologue, tree stronger and more grounded because the more the water
Technical Dialogue, and Genuine Dialogue. subsides, the more the roots dig into the soil's depths.
Likewise, perseverance and immutability are manifestations
First, monologueis defined and understood as disguised of howconstant we are to our fidelity.
dialogue. It is when one insists ontalking all by oneself
without allowing others to be heard. As a form of AVAILABLITY (DISPONIBILITÉ)
dialoguewherein an authentic relationship is impossible,
respect and mutuality do not manifest but rather
 |CHAPTER V|
Intersubjectivity and Creative Fidelity

Marcel introduced availability, or as he called it infidelity,boredom, disloyalty, and lack of love which may
Disponibilité. Availability means being present in all happen along the way.
circumstances. However, presence does not just mean being
present physically but being there for the other. An OFW HOPE
parent always tries his/her best to have video calls with
his/her family. A friend unquestionably consoles his/her Hope is very much different from fidelity, though they are
broken-hearted friend. related. This is because hope issomething transcendent that
human beings keep. It is our appeal to something greater
The meaning of being present in all circumstances is an than us. For Marcel, it is the final guarantor of fidelity. It
authentic reality because of our commitment to our loved means that we submit everything to a transcendent
ones, families, friends, children, etc. We are called to be being(Buber calls it “EternalThou”), hoping that He will be
committed over time. However, how could we be faithful to with us in our journey of commitment and fidelity.However,
our commitment over time? In the context of marriage, two it does not follow that humans should not do anything
acts are presumably accepted and known by the couple. The because there is someone greater than us to help. The beauty
first act is to commit to the otherwithout questioning one's of hope gives us an avenue to participate in that intervention
future disposition. The second act is the response of the and help. Marcel invites us to have “active patience” in
other person to thatcommitment. dealing with our daily circumstances. More so, hope gives
humans ample time to be creative in our fidelity and
On one hand, Marcel expects us to be committed to the other commitment while hoping that everything will befine.
when we enter a relationship that we hope will last forever. Creative fidelity does not only sustain our relationships but
That is why, in the first act, it is no longer what you feel but also creates ourselves. Along the way,the person changes
a matter ofwhat you vowed. Love should still be there, but it his/her being into something better significantly if it did not
is more of a responsibility to take good care of your help the relationship.“Hope consists in asserting that there is
commitment to each other. On the other hand, these two acts at the heart of being, beyond all data, beyond all inventories
must be shared by the spouses. It is a reciprocated and all calculations, a mysterious principle which is in
relationship which means that both parties accept the connivance with me” (Marcel, The Philosophy of Existence,
commitment to each other and nurture such until death. 28).

CREATIVE FIDELITY In conclusion, I-Thou relationships can be sustained by

creative fidelity. Moreover, as we havelearned, the
As mentioned above, fidelity is always put into question in a relationship does not stop in loving and being faithful to
genuine relationship since it requiresconstancy over time, each other and responsible for each other's commitments.
perseverance, and commitment. However, the problem of Furthermore, this responsibility even goes beyond marriage
constancy must be illuminated and guided by creativity to because wealso commit ourselves to love our family,
sustain such a relationship. As Marcel puts it, creative friends, neighbors, and the like. With that, creative
fidelityis a reality wherein one does not only express one's fidelitysustains all forms of genuine relationships.
creativity to fidelity but, most essentially, create one's life to
meet the demands of fidelity. For instance, one of the
manifestations of creating andrecreating the self is when PHILOSOPHY
both parties try to solve misunderstandings. It is important to | Lesson 5 |
note that when unfortunate circumstances arise, there is The Face of the Other
always the return to the Ias a committed person to the other
and the placing of oneself at the disposal of the other.
Therefore, “to be disposable is to believe the other, to place THE EXPERIENCE OF THE FACE
me at her disposal and to maintain the openness of
Disponibilité. ‘Creative fidelity'consists in actively It is uncommon for us to be responsible for others, most
maintaining ourselves in a state of openness and especially if they are strangers. We naturally recognize our
permeability, in willing ourselves to remain open to the responsibility to those we relate to, like our family, friends,
other and open to the influx of the presence of the other” and the like, but how about strangers or our enemies? Can
(Marcel,Creative Fidelity, 53). we have a relationship with them? Can we consider them as
subjects and not objects? Are we responsible for them?
Creative fidelity is not always a solution to a shaking
relationship. It is not just about beingcommitted and In this lesson, Levinas proposes that we consider the Thou
disposed to the other but also about having gleaming hope as a faceless other. By nature, andby the essence of our
toward the relationship and the other. We do not envision being, we are responsible for the Other and the many Other.
the future of our relationship based on speculation, but our However, this responsibility does not come from our
sense of creative fidelity gives us an idea of how we are consciousness nor freedom but rather from our ontological
going to sustain such a relationship during and ethical call, that is, to be responsible for the Other.
 |CHAPTER V|
Intersubjectivity and Creative Fidelity

“The Face” for Levinas is a metaphor. It is not a should come up with a definitive andconclusive ethical
phenomenon since it goes beyond intentionality. When one responsibility-for-the-Other in confronting both Other and
sees the face (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.), which appears to the manyOther. In this regard, the Other or many Other
him/her as a phenomenon, it is not yet an encounter of “the commands theI to respond to that inevitable call.
Face” of the Other. For Levinas, it is impossible to reduce
“the Face” into a phenomenological something because “the To conclude, the face of the other and the manyOther
Face” is the person's whole being. The Face of the Otheris signify and await its proclamation therein. The life of others,
beyond what is visible and sensible. Hence, it is not a the being of others, falls to me as a duty: an inescapable and
question of “Who is my neighbor?” because “the Face” is ad infinitumresponsibility (Levinas, In the Time of the
always the Other and the Other is always my neighbor. In Nation, 111). In this sense, the infinite nature of this
this regard, the responsibility-for-the-Other is possible if one responsibility does notcease to extend like a horizon that
considers the Other as the whole person and not someone never stops to expand
based on physical appearances. It means that the face of the
Other is the epiphany beyond categorization

RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND ONTOLOGY

n Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, Levinas speaks

of responsibility as the essential, primary, and fundamental
structure of subjectivity (Levinas, Otherwise than Being or
Beyond Essence, 9). The Iis a hostage not only by the Other
but also by the Other's responsibility. Since “the Other isnot
simply close to me in space, or close like a parent, but the
Other approaches me essentially insofar as I feel myself—
insofar as I am—responsible for him” (Levinas, Ethics, and
Infinity: Conversation with Philippe Nemo, 96). It is the face
of Other that ordains that the Ibe responsible for that Other;
such is ordination to goodness. Again, Levinas continuously
reminds us that this kind of ethical relationship between the
I and the Other is not reciprocal but asymmetrical.

When the I recognizes and claims this responsibility as a

predetermined morality before ontology, which leads the Ito
summon the self to be present, then the responsibility of the
Ito the Other will never be a return to the self but a
continuous responsibility that is alwaysoutside of the self.

RESPONSIBILITY-FOR-THE-THER AND THE

MANY OTHERS

In the society wherein theIand the Other have an intimate

exclusivity between them, the presence of the manyOther is
disregarded—the many Other who also happens to be the
neighbors. In this situation, the manyOther, which Levinas
called the Third, is substantially disturbing this intimacy
between the I and the Other since society inevitably involves
the existence of the Third. However, the I is being
summoned not just by the Other but also by the manyOther.
This means that the manyOther, who also happens to be the
I's neighbor,is equal to the first Other.

This conflict in responsibility itself calls for the need to

compare the incomparable, which means to bring balance to
the incomparableness of the good, which directs itself
toward the Other as unique, with all the others' rights. Our
responsibility's generality obliges us to compare the unique
Other withall Others, meaning to say to allow for equal
treatment and calculation. It requires the I call for justice
between the Other and the manyOther. It means that the I