Lecture 5

Man 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
1. Human Dialogue/Encounter
The 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 Seeming
b. Personal Making Present and Speechfying
c. Unfolding and Imposition
3. Marks of Genuine Dialogue
a. Fulfilled in its being
b. Between partners who have turned toward another in truth
c. Who express themselves without reserve and are free of desire for resemblance
d. Fruitful
1.

a.

Distinction between Social Sphere (I-It Relation) and Interhuman Sphere (I-Thou Relation)
SOCIAL SPHERE
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
- collectivism
ii.
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
- individualism
iii.
this level of the person (his/her
parts) could be labeled, be
conceptualized clearly and
precisely.
- A non-mystery

2.

a.

I relate with the other as an object

INTERHUMAN SPHERE
I-Thou Relation: I relate with/treat the other
as a Thou
1. I relate with the other in his/her totality,
uniqueness, unity, depth
i.
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 a subject

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 IThou 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.
1.
i.

Being vs. Seeming

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 ones 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
- He ignores, unaware, uninterested what he really is
2

ii.
-

iii.
-

2.
i.

- 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
Being
Kind of existence
- Which proceeds from what one really is, from ones 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.
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 ones
being. This is not natural to man and it originates on the other side of the interhuman life itself, in
mens dependence upon one another.
Challenge:
- to drive out the ghosts, to vanish the semblances
- to live and be strengthen by ones being, the depth of personal life
- one must struggle, must pay the price to do this but never in vain.

Personal- Making Present vs. Speechfying

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 others 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
In speaking, I really speak to the other as the person he is
3

c.

- 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 tomorrows clear sight, some kind of intuition.

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.
-

ii.
-

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 others 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.
Unfolding
General Description:
4

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.

2.

3.

4.

3.

Primary Concern: Individual Person

- a educators 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.
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.
An educator sees himself/herself as somekind of a handmaid, a servant to the self-actualization
of the others 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.
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.

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
- 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.
5

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 Love
A Phenomenology of Love by Manny Dy; A Phenomenology of Love by William Luijpen
Outline:
Introduction
1. Love as An Appeal (Invitation) of the Other
a. An invitation/appeal to me to step out of myself
b. An invitation/appeal to be with, for the other
i.
not an appeal of his/her facticity
ii.
an appeal not identified with the explicit request
iii.
appeal of his subjectivity, to share in his subjectivity
c. An appeal that brings new dimension to existence
2. Love as a Yes to the Appeal
a. Yes of my subjectivity
b. Embodied Yes to the Other
c. Yes to the Other for the sake of the other
d. A yes that bring self-fulfillment
e. A yes that demands to be ratified by the other
3. Love as Creativity, as making to be
a. Distinction between knowing and loving
b. Distinction between creativity of love and creativity of artistic work
c. What is created in love:
i.
Creation of the WE
ii.
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.
- 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.
6

1.

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.

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.
-

ii.

Not an appeal of his/her facticity

Facticity:
- Refers to ones 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 others qualities in themselves speak to me, invite me, the invitation does not come
from the other as the other, as a person, thou, subjectivity.
An appeal not identified with the explicit request
7

iii.
-

c.

2.

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.
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.

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

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
- this appeal which brings me to an awareness of the deepest aspect of my existence demands a response, an
appropriate response.
8

2.
i.

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 dont 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.
Embodied Yes to other's Subjectivity
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:
- Unique self-project:
- Ultimate Reality/Value toward which he/she directs his/her life:
9

- 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.

3.

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 ones 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 others 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 Others 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 ones 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 Others subjectivity as a response to Others appeal
- This willing, supporting, affirming of the Others 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.
- Thus, there is the risk of rejection, betrayal and consequently, one becomes entirely defenseless.
10

3.

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

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
- Subjectivity
- Supporting
- Self-Project
- Assisting
the Others
- Freedom
- Fostering
- Self-hood
- Creating
- 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 otherss 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 ones 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

In his/her love (his breaking out of himself/herself to affirm, support, etc. my subjectiivity, my selfrealization of my unique self-project), I am no longer alone in my subjectivity
11

ii.
-

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.
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
Outline
1. Introduction
a. Purpose of the Article
b. Urgency and Importance of Waking Up from Spiritual Stupor
c. Approach
2. Insidious Devaluation of the Important Concepts of Truth and Justice
a. Partial Truth and Indolence in the Quest for the Truth
b. Partial Truth leads to Apparent Justice
3. Authentic Justice as the Beginning and Sign of Love
a. Independence from Subjective Inclination/Affective Attraction
b. Respect of the Persons Inviolability
4. Authentic Justice in Relation to Truth: Justice Living in Truth
a. Truth cannot be equated with the order imposed from without
b. Truth cannot be equated with my moods
c. 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 delirium
c. 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
- He would cite and clarify the experiences from which he has come to the questions of justice and
truth:
12

2.

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

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 groups 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.
Bottomline: question of justice is not just a question of partisan interest
13

ii.
-

iii.
3.

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 mothers 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.
Justice equated with price list of ones 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.

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 dont 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 others 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
- The minimum demand for the acceptance, support etc. of the other consists in not permitting the wolf
in me to destroy/devour the other
14

4.

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.

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, ones 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 ones moods and interests

- ones moods and interests refer to:
- ones personal moods and interests
- moods and interests of ones 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.
-

ii.
iii.
d.

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.
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.
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 ones 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.

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
- Marshal Petain: head of the French government created by the Germans who had occupied France
in World War II
15

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 marshals 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
- Governments 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.
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