Posts
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Clarification of Terms
1.1.1 Problem and Mystery
1.1.2 Primary and Secondary Reflection
1.2 Misconception of Being as the Problem in the World
of Communication
1.2.1 Being and Having
1.2.2 Functionalism
1.3 Proper Understanding of Being
1.3.1 Love
1.3.2 Availability
1.3.3 Fidelity and Faith
1.3.4 Hope
1.4 Implications of Marcel’s Philosophy of
Communication
1.4.1 Human Person as Essentially Communicative
1.4.2 Intersubjectivity as a Model for
Communication
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The word ‘communication’ is a very
widely used term today. It is a word that catches the attention of everyone; a
word that has gained popularity and acceptance in the recent times. One of the
reasons why this word has gained so much of popularity is also the growth in
the field of communication in the recent years. Due to its wide usage, the word
‘communication’ has also come to acquire wide range of meanings. One of the common understandings of the word ‘communication’
today, is the mass communication or the mass media communication. However, ‘communication’
is not merely mass media communication; as understood by some. It actually
refers to the whole process of communicating a message, and this could happen
at personal, social and global level. Communication could also happen at the
realm of the ‘non-verbal.’ The process of communication involves the subject
who communicates the object (another subject) to whom the message is
communicated and the message that is communicated between the two parties. This
process could involve even more minute steps like receptivity, reciprocity,
biases etc., However, the basic elements in communication are “subject,”
“another subject” and the message.
In this article I would like to
expound Gabriel Marcel’s philosophy of communication. Gabriel Marcel
(1889-1973), a French existentialist philosopher proposes Intersubjectivity as
a model for communication. For him the problem in meaningful communication lies
in the misconception of ‘being;’ a ‘being’ “who” is essentially
Intersubjective. He realized how important it was to communicate, and to
communicate in a personal one-to-one level. This kind of communication, he
says, demands an openness, availability, fidelity and faith from the
individuals involved in communication. It demands love and co-operation.
1.1 Clarification of Terms
Marcel, in his exposition of the
notion of the human person as communicative beings, uses some particular terms.
Some of these terms he uses, may not be very clear to us, because some of those
terms are coined by him and others, used differently. Before I present his
philosophy of communication I would like to clarify some of these terms.
1.1.1 Problem and Mystery
By mystery, Marcel does not refer
to the realm of the unknowable. But he sees it as approachable by a type of
rational thought which he calls secondary reflection. Unlike in the case of “problems,”
in the realm of mystery there are no generalized or objective solutions, only
communion, testimony and witness.[1]
Problems can be discussed
completely and objectively; without involving in any manner the “persons” of
the ones studying it. In the world of problem the investigator is dispassionate
and uninvolved. This is the technique employed by the sciences.[2] A mystery
on the other hand is a problem which encroaches upon its own data, invading
them, as it were, and thereby transcending itself as a simple problem.[3] In
mystery the distinction between what is in me and what is before me breaks
down. Mystery is a reality rooted in what is beyond the domain of
problematical. [4]
Mystery is something that I am
involved in or find myself in; actually, I am inside it. Mystery envelops and
comprehends me.[5] The mysterious always eludes the full
grasp of man. A mystery is a meta-problematical state of affairs. It is not
given to a thinker, rather it tends to include the thinker as a participant. It
is a reality in which I find myself engaged; it is not a part of myself but the
total “me” which is engaged in it. Mystery transcends definition and it cannot
be objectified, the mystery is in me and in you and not before me or you.[6] This
is what Marcel means by mystery.
1.1.2 Primary and Secondary Reflection
Reflection according to Marcel
operates on more than one level. While primary reflection seeks to gain clarity
about the world of abstraction, objectification and verification, secondary
reflection seeks to wonder at richer understanding of the meaning of human
existence by a return to, reflection on, the experiences such as appreciation,
fidelity and faith. It is only within the secondary reflection that the mystery
of being is apprehended. When I ask myself ‘what is the significance of my
faith in God?’ by primary reflection I may try to search for clarity,
explanation, study the environment etc., whereas, secondary reflection will
question ‘what meaning does it have for me.’[7]
Thus the secondary reflection challenges me at a personal level.
Recollection is a kind of secondary
reflection, it is the process by which I look for some meaning which is not
immediately visible. In recollection, I am able to weigh the actual life I am
living and the potential life within me. Recollection involves a deeper
participation in the mysterious fullness and complexity which can be
appreciated but never clearly presented to the observing mind.[8]
1.2 Misconception of Being as the Problem in the World
of Communication
According to Marcel, the basic
problem in communication is the ignorance of the true ‘nature’ of being.[9] The
basic problem being the inability of the subject/communicator to recognize the
worth of the other subject/human person; misconception of ‘being.’ Marcel, in
his writings vehemently criticizes the functional and technocratic world that
has lost the sense of being.[10]
One of the questions that could arise is, ‘what is the connection between
misconception of being and communication?’ well, the issue here is, for Marcel,
the human person (in communication) are persons[11]
and if the “other” in communication is not recognized as person a meaningful
communication cannot happen. Now let us see what Marcel meant by misconception
of being.
The ‘subject’/‘being’ is
essentially Intersubjective and communicative.[12] In
communication, what is most important is the “other”/“subject” to whom the
message is communicated. If we fail to recognize the ‘other’ as ‘subject,’ how
can meaningful communications take place? For Marcel, the concrete experiences
of life are foundational in understanding our being. The question of being, in
fact, focuses mainly upon that which is eternal within human experience.[13]
Being is a mystery approachable only through individual beings; and individual
beings can be known in their true reality only as they are approached in love/Intersubjective
communication. Hence the search for being must begin by a phenomenological
analysis of love/ Intersubjective communication and proceed to examine those
experiences, such as availability, fidelity, faith and hope which are
modalities of love.[14]
Thus we see very clearly that the tendency to isolate oneself is the result of
misconception of being. Being is fundamentally communicative subject with
dignity and eternal intrinsic value. However, the main problem in communication
lies in the inability or ignorance of the communicating subject to recognize
the other as ‘being’ and this has come about due to various reasons one of the
reasons being the “growth” of technology.
1.2.1 Being and Having
Let us further explain the
misconception of being by analyzing the notion of ‘being’ and ‘having.’ The way
we look at the world and the people around us influence the formation of our
self a great deal. It is worth noting how Marcel distinguishes two attitudes
that we could have in communication. Our
attitude could either be that of ‘being’ or ‘having.’ We could treat the other
as a ‘person’ or as an ‘object.’ ‘Being’
implies participation, mystery, presence, I-thou relationships, thought which
stands in the presence of, concrete thinking and secondary reflection. On the
other hand having implies objectification, problem, object, I-It relationships,
thought which proceeds by interrogation, abstraction and primary reflection.
Both of these views are important but the problem in communication today is the
preoccupation with the possessive (‘having’) attitude.[15] The
modern communication tends to treat the other as ‘having’ i.e., as objects or possessions.[16]
We also see having mentality at the
personal level. In the case of suicide we have people disposing their bodies as
though the body is something that we “have;” as though body is a thing.[17] In
the field of communication ‘having’ mentality could lead to a disaster because
the man who remains in the realm of ‘having’ is centred either on himself or on
another treated as “another.”[18]
At the root of ‘having’ there lies a certain specialization or better,
specification of the self and this is connected with the partial alienation of
the self.[19]
The problem with communication today
is that, the other is treated as ‘having’ and not as ‘being.’ In communication,
the concern today is, ‘what I can get from the other;’ the ‘person’ or the ‘being’
is forgotten. The whole problem of communication takes place when the subject
that communicates treats the other/subject as ‘having’ i.e., and anonymous
entity, an object, a possession.
1.2.2 Functionalism
Functionalism is the identification
of the person with his/her function/role. The problem of functionalism in the
world of Communication is, ‘I communicate to you as long as you are useful to
me.’[20]
We clearly see here how dignity and sacredness of the subject is replaced with
the function the other performs; whatever the function may be. Intersubjective
communication should be the hallmark of being human but it is sad to see the
rampart “growth” of functionalism. The
attitude of functionalism is a proof that Man in one way or another have moved
away from what he truly is; being. Modern man has lost the ontological weight
of human experience; dignity and sacredness of being is replaced with
functionality.[21]
Functionalism is a perilous trend
that could lead to superficiality in communication, cover-ups and pretension.[22] The
consequences of functionalism are grave. Functionalism has aggravated the
degradation human dignity. Life in a functionalized world becomes a process
without purpose, utilization of means with no clearly defined end, a journey
without goal. This no doubt is a road to despair and nihilism.[23]
1.3 Proper Understanding of Being
Marcel after having identified the
problem of communication suggests a very practical solution. The problem being,
the misconception of being/person. Thus, his solution is, a proper
understanding of ‘being.’ In this section we shall see how he suggests
reflection[24]
on the ordinary events of life like love, fidelity, faith, and hope in order to
understand ‘being.’ His solution may seem very ordinary, however, his insights
are very profound.
Being could be defined as that
which does not allow itself to be dissolved by the dialectics of experience;
being is that which resists the corrosive acids of primary reflection’s attempt
to reduce experience to the level of the objective and the problematic.[25]
When he calls a ‘subject’ or ‘person’ a ‘being,’ he means that it possesses
intrinsic value or dignity; a value or dignity that is not limited in time but
rather eternal. The experience of fidelity and love he says, reveal the
presence of such value in persons. He brings to our notice that people do
receive unconditional commitments;[26] which is an indication that they do possess
eternal intrinsic value. Hence, unconditional fidelity and love between human
beings is meaningless if the individual making such commitment does not
experience the other as participating in an imperishable, eternal value that is
intrinsic. Absence of such value would make all such pledges absurd.[27]
Now this being which participates
in an eternal intrinsic value is essentially communicative; human persons are
ontologically Intersubjective. Human beings long for meaningful communication
and find fullness of being only in interpersonal communication. A person
experiences interpersonal communication through his experience of love (agape).[28]
Marcel insists that structurally my being is a being-with-others and at no time
of my existence am I self sufficient, isolated monad.[29]
Our own self knowledge and self-love is dependent on others and their knowledge
and love of us. Our self-fulfillment comes only through availability to other
persons and union with them in Intersubjective communication such as love and
fidelity.[30] For Marcel, just as a concrete individual is
inseparable from his incarnation in a body and his immersion in a situation, he
is likewise inseparable from his Intersubjective communication with other
persons. Quoting Marcel, Sam Keen insists that,
Philosophy
begins with ‘we are’ rather than ‘think,’ with co-esse rather than esse,
with intentional consciousness rather than self-consciousness, with
inter-subjectivity rather than subjectivity. The individual cannot be conceived
as an isolated atom to whom relations are somehow added. Relationship is
creative of being. The ability of a child to use language and to have a sense
of personal identity is dependent upon his being nurtured in a human community.
Like an island that arises out of an encompassing sea, the individual ego
emerges from an Intersubjective nexus.[31]
Thus,
we see that according to Marcel, the human person establishes oneself as a
person only in Intersubjective communication. But we see some people who may
consciously wants to cut themselves off from others and live within the
confines of their own ego. In Marcel’s view such subjective isolation is a
denial of the communion within which the mystery of being is known. In one of
his plays, Les coeurs des autres he
writes, ‘there is only one suffering: to be alone.’ He does not deny that self
could become a kind of hellish prison from which all hope and love have been
barred, but he refuses to admit that this is the condition of authentic human
life. The imprisoned and hermetic ego results from a refusal to heed the appeal
for communion which arises from other persons. For Marcel, Intersubjectivity is
the precondition of human consciousness, and communion the mode of authentic
life; he says philosophy can be characterized as a series of meditations on the
meaning of ‘with.’[32]
1.3.1 Love
Love issues forth from the whole
being of a person and involves him in something which transcends him. It is an
active refusal to treat itself as “subjective” i.e., it is an affirmation of
the value of the other. True love is full of unconditional quality which is the
sign of presence; a presence which is incarnated in the “us.”[33]
To say that one loves a being is to affirm that ‘thou shall not die.’ This
would mean, because I love you, because I affirm you as being, there is
something in you which can bridge that abyss that I call death. From the moment
my affirmation becomes love, it resigns in favour of that which is affirmed, of
the thing which is asserted in its substantial value. This is precisely what
love is; it cannot be divorced from this resignation. Love cannot be separated
from faith; in fact it is faith.[34]
The mysterious quality which is
aimed at in love is, “whatever changes may intervene in what I see before me,
you and I will persist as one: the event that has occurred, and which belongs
to the order of accident, cannot nullify the promise of eternity which is
enclosed in our love, in our mutual pledge.”[35] We can understand the God of faith as spirit
only in the context of Intersubjectivity i.e., of love. If human love is
centered on itself, if it sinks into a mutually shared narcissism, it turns
into idolatry and pronounces its own death sentence.[36]
1.3.2 Availability
If love is so essential in the
realization of our being, our approach to being must first deal with that
attitude which is a pre-condition of love. The spirit of abstraction and
possession are the foundation stones of the prison which the ego builds for
itself. In order to make the approaches to being concrete and practical we must
first find ways by which the ego may break out of its self-inflicted
imprisonment and enter into fully personal relationships. The first requirement
for such relationships is the availability.
An unavailable person is locked up
in one’s small circle of private experience and judges others only by the way
they fit into one’s preconceived desires and plans. Life is like a possession
which the unavailable man hoards. A person in order to participate in and
Intersubjective communication needs to be available.
[37]
The available person is not encumbered
with his own possessions, self-image, or a
priori categories into which other persons must fit. Hence, he has the
capacity to listen and respond to the appeal made by others to him. This
openness is never an assured disposition but is a conquest which must be made
again and again. One has to battle constantly with “oneself” as well as with
the environment that influences one to be a “self-sufficient” monad. There is
also a certain quality of prodigality and abandon about the way the available
man gives of oneself. This prodigality is not an evidence of lack of
responsibility but is the result of a refusal to calculate the possibilities
and the limits within which it is rational to hope and within which love may be
creative. It is inevitably the person who is most consecrated and faithful who
is most available. Availability and fidelity go hand in hand.[38]
1.3.3 Fidelity and Faith
A ‘being’ possesses value or
dignity that is not limited in time but rather eternal. This can be seen in the
experience of fidelity. People who give themselves in unconditional commitment
or fidelity recognize in the other, the eternal intrinsic value. Thus, unconditional
fidelity and love between human beings is meaningless if the individual making
such commitment does not experience the other as participating in an
imperishable, eternal value that is intrinsic.
Absence of such value would make all such pledges absurd.[39]
Fidelity is the foundation on which
a community is built. It refers to our faithfulness to the engagements we have
taken upon ourselves. The idea of fidelity is very close to that of loyalty.
Fidelity always implies an unconditional vow to another person, in other words,
commitment to the other. It is an unimposed presence of an ‘I’ to a ‘thou.’[40]
Fidelity helps the self to achieve some identity, some unity, some triumph over
the corrosive acids of time. It is not a stubborn adherence to one’s duty
neither is it mere constancy. It is not even the preservation of a status quo. But
it is creative and seeks to cooperate with the other person’s efforts to become
free. Fidelity does not calculate rather it is a leap into the dark. In
swearing fidelity I am uncertain of the future. I cannot assure that my
feelings will not change tomorrow, next month, or next year? However, beauty of
fidelity lies in this very fact of unknownness or uncertainty of the future. It
is this element in fidelity that gives weightage to our fidelity.[41]
It also a sign of the recognition of the other as ‘being.’ Only when I
recognize the other as being will I be able to commit myself in fidelity.
Experience tells us that human
beings are radically contingent, frequently fickle, and generally weak to make
a commitment that is unconditional, thus prone to infidelity and Marcel is
aware of it, in fact, Fidelity can never be unconditional except where it is
Faith. This is how fidelity and faith is connected. Having said this, it is
also important to note that fidelity aspires to unconditionality.[42]
Fidelity is always directed to the person and it is always a response to a
person; it is the response to an appeal which recognizes in the other person
something of lasting value.[43]
Fidelity is an act of the total person taking responsibility for another. In
pledging faithfulness to another person we recognize the being of the other; we
recognize him/her as ‘Thou’ and not as an ‘It,’ as ‘Presence’ and not as an ‘Object.’
Fidelity involves the unconditional and it has its justification when it
becomes faith in God.[44]
When fidelity reaches its highest
point, it becomes faith in God, here the unconditional vow implied in human
love receives its most complete justification. Now, one might ask what is the
connection between fidelity to a ‘thou’ and the faith in ‘Absolute Thou?’ The
hint to this is the factor of unconditionality in fidelity. Fidelity demands an
unconditional vow, an absolute commitment to the other person.[45] Now
the question here is, does absolute commitment demand that one be committed to
an absolute personal being? Marcel is of the opinion that it does.
Unconditionality is the true sign of God’s presence. On this point even Sartre
agrees with Marcel. For him, fidelity aspires to an unconditionality which can
only be fulfilled when it is joined with faith.[46]
1.3.4 Hope
Hope can be considered as a
continuation and expansion of availability. It is indeed openness in the face
of the ultimate mystery of being. There is also a parallel between the
structures of fidelity and hope. Just as faith is the model of fidelity, so also
the unconditional hope in God; the Absolute Thou, alone reveals the true nature
of hope. As the reality to which faith
is a testimony is not absent from any genuine fidelity, likewise the presence
creating in the believer that hope for salvation is never wholly absent where
authentic human life strives to transcend the broken world in which it exists.
The exigence of transcendence which is the driving force behind all authentic
human life is nothing other than hope that does not yet recognize itself as
such. A phenomenology of hope reveals an unconditional element at the heart of
human existence. Thus, suggesting that the exigence of transcendence is only
veiled exigence of God. The most conditioned hope points beyond itself to an Absolute
Thou who is the foundation of, and the presence immanent within unconditional
hope.[47]
As fidelity can arise only where
there is the possibility of betrayal, so hope can arise only where there is the
possibility of despair. Hope is directed toward salvation; it involves coming
out of the darkness of illness, separation, exile or slavery. To despair is to
affirm the faithlessness of reality, to proclaim that the future can never
break away from the tyranny of the past. It is to measure the possible by pre-established
categories and to establish limits beyond which the rational man must cease to
hope. Only where there is the temptation to despair can hope arise as the self,
in freedom, refusing to absolutise those categories which promise only
extinction to the human spirit. The task of a person therefore is to guard
against despair by showing the limits of the categories of primary reflection
and by pointing to the mysterious reality upon which hope rests.[48]
To affirm that man is utterly alone
and dependent only on his own resources is to condemn him to act without hope. Sartre
very strongly propagates this. He advocated despair rather than hope. Hope
rests with Intersubjectivity, with love, and ultimately with faith. Hope
involves the refusal to calculate the limits of the possible. The absolute
openness of unconditional hope is inseparable from faith. It appears as a
response of the creature to the infinite being to whom it is conscious of owing
everything that it has. The openness of hope indicates that it is of the nature
of hope to be unverifiable. There is no logical limit to hope. To hope is to
trust in the final triumph of the love of God.[49] Hope
does not foresee or imagine its end, but trusts on the basis of an established relationship
that the loved one does not, and will not betray love. It is only on the level
of Intersubjectivity that hope is possible. Hope is only possible to the degree
that the self overcomes the egocentrism of possession which is manifest in
desire.[50]
1.4 Implications of Marcel’s Philosophy of
Communication
Marcel’s philosophy, I believe,
have a lot to contribute to the world of communication. First and foremost
Marcel’s understanding of a human person is that of a ‘being’ who is
ontologically communicative/Intersubjective. This fundamental assertion I
suppose conveys how important the process of communication is for Marcel. He
does not use the word ‘communication’ as much as ‘Intersubjectivity’ to express
this notion. However, Intersubjectivity could be understood as a process of
communication; in fact it is a very rich experience of communication. In this regard he could be considered a
philosopher of communication par excellence. He views human persons are beings
constantly longing for meaningful communication.[51]
1.4.1 Human Person as Essentially Communicative
As we cannot think of ourselves as
separable from our bodies, we cannot think of separating ourselves from the
concrete situations[52]
in which we find ourselves. Marcel says, “I am my habitual surroundings in the
same way that I am my body.”[53]
For him, I am inseparable from the family, the nation, the professional and
religious groups in which I participate. I cannot think of my self apart from
my situation. There is a mysterious bond that unites us to our situations in
the same way that the child is united in the womb to the mother.
As far as I do not
enter into an I- Thou relationship; which my being always invites me to
participate in, I remain an isolated ego, always a prey to loneliness and
despair. Apart from the relationship of mutual intersubjective communication I
remain an incomplete ‘being’/‘im-person.’[54] Human
life is a mixture of both I-he as well as I-thou relationships. Sometimes the
situation is such that the society becomes a hindrance in our striving towards
an I- thou relationship. Sometimes in spite of our efforts we still fall in the
trap of objectifying the other. This is because complete communion is a rare
flower of love, not the normal atmosphere we generally live in. However, the
creative interchange of communication gradually transforms isolated and
possessive egos into persons.[55]
Marcel’s concrete philosophy of the human person as an incarnate being who is
inseparable from his situation leads forward to concrete ontology. For him, the
way to meaningful communication is through our participation. Thus, for him,
interpersonal relationship forms the doorway to the knowledge of the mystery of
being.[56]
1.4.2 Intersubjectivity as a Model for
Communication
Marcel through his notion of the
human person as being; who is essentially
intersubjective, tries to show us a way out of the problems of communication
today. The problem being, ignorance of ‘being.’ The absence of respect for the
‘other’ in communication, or irresponsible behaviour in communication are all
consequences of such ignorance. What Marcel suggests is that all people begin
to reflect on experiences of life and be aware of ‘being.’ This realization
will gradually enable one to enter into a deep relationship with one another in
a one to one co-presence. What the world need today is the deep realization
that we are after all Intersubjective beings in need of meaningful
relationships. This realization and the consequent execution of the realization
could solve the problem of communication today. The ‘communicating subject’
needs to realize that people they are communicating their messages to; whatever
the message be, are subjects/individuals. The other is a subject who desire and
deserve respect, love and the care that we are so particular in showering
ourselves with. Applying the same principle to mass media communication,
Marcel’s suggestion would be that, media persons and the mass communication today
keep in mind that people to whom they are communicating their message to, are “persons.”[57]
1.5
Conclusion
In this article my effort has been
to present Marcel’s philosophy of communication. It has been a great experience
studying Marcel’s philosophy and applying it to communication. Marcel indeed
has a lot to contribute to the world of communication. I began this article by
clarifying some Marcellian terms and then went on to state the problem that
Marcel sees in the field of communication; which is basically the misconception
of being.[58]
I then, proceeded to explain Marcel’s solution to the problem, i.e., proper
understanding of ‘being,’ which can be achieved through reflection on some of
the profound experiences of life like love, fidelity, faith and hope.
Reflection indeed shows, that human
person is essentially Intersubjective/communicative being; a being with eternal
intrinsic value. This realization of ‘being,’ taken seriously will change us
and facilitate a different approach towards the ‘other.’ Once we become aware of ‘being’/‘other,’ the other
no longer become ‘he’/‘she’ but a ‘Thou.’[59] This
then helps the communicating subject to enter into a meaningful communication;
an “I- Thou communication.” As explained earlier, for Marcel, to exist is to
communicate; in fact, his notion of incarnation is a way of saying that we are
born in communication or rather we “find” ourselves in communication.[60]
For him ‘to exist is to co-exist,’ and ‘to live is to live with.’[61]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A.
PRIMARY
SOURCES
Marcel, Gabriel. Mystery of Being, Vol. 1: Reflection and Mystery. Tr. by G.S. Fraser. Indiana: Gateway Editions,
1950.
-----. Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith
and Reality. Chicago: Gateway Edition Henry
Regnery Company, 1960.
-----. The Philosophy of Existentialism. Tr. by
Manya Harari. New York: The Citadel Press, 1967.
-----. Being
and Having. Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1976.
B.
SECONDARY
SOURCES
Keen,
Sam. Gabriel Marcel. Virginia: John
Knox Press, 1967.
Manimala,
J. Varghese. Being, Person and Community. New Delhi: Intercultural Publications,
1991.
C.
ARTICLES
Anderson,
C. Thomas. “The Nature of the Human Self
According to Gabriel Marcel,” Philosophy
Today 29 (1985), 273-283.
Keen,
Sam. “The Development of the Idea of Being in Marcel’s Thought,” The Library of Living Philosophers, ed.
Paul Arthur Schilpp and Lewis Edwin Hahn. vol. 17. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University, 1987.
Luther,
Arthur. “Marcel’s Metaphysics of We Are,” Philosophy
Today 10 (1966), 191-203.
O’
Hara, M. Kevin. “Person in the
Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel,” Philosophy
Today 8 (1964), 147-153.
Straus,
W. Erwin. and Machado, A. Michael. “Gabriel Marcel’s Notion of
Incarnate Being,” The Library of Living
Philosophers ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp and Lewis Edwin Hahn. vol. 17. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1987.
D.
INTERNET
ARTICLES
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/#1, accessed on 28/3/12.
https://20th-centuryphilosophy.wikispaces.com/Marcel+on+Presence+and+Intersubjectivity,
accessed on 13/3/2012.
CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
[1] Sam Keen, Gabriel Marcel (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967), 21-22.
[2] Varghese J. Manimala, Being, Person and Community (New Delhi:
Intercultural Publications, 1991), 146.
[3] Gabriel Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism. Tr. by
Manya Harari (New York: The Citadel Press, 1967), 19. See also Gabriel
Marcel, Being and Having (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1976), 171.
[4] Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism, 20-21.
[5] Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism, 20-21.
[6] Manimala, Being, Person and Community, 146.
[7] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 22.
[8] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 23-24.
[9] Here what Marcel means by true
nature of being is that it is an ontologically communicative being. Cf Gabriel Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality (Chicago: Gateway
Edition Henry Regnery Company, 1960), 179.
[10] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 9.
[11] What Marcel means by “person” is
persons who possess eternal intrinsic value and persons who are essentially
communicative. Cf Thomas C. Anderson, “The Nature of the Human Self According
to Gabriel Marcel,” Philosophy Today 29 (1985), 280.
[12] Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 179.
[13] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 31.
[14] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 31-32.
[15] To possess is to have a thing or
an object in one’s control. It is to have the power to retain, conserve,
protect and dispose of. Cf Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 14-15. See also Marcel, Being and Having, 155.
[16] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 14-15.
[17] Marcel, Being and Having, 156.
[18] Marcel, Being and Having, 166.
[19] Marcel, Being and Having, 172.
[20] An attitude that is totally
utilitarian and materialistic.
[21] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 9.
[22] One of the examples
of superficiality in communication is, an Air hostess trying to pretend to be
very welcoming to the passengers. She does not do it because she wants to do it
but because her function requires it. In fact she is trained to “pretend” to be
welcoming.
[23] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 10.
[24] If one applies upon love, faith
and hope the logic of primary reflections and rejects them as subjective
illusions, there can be no affirmation of being. It is only as secondary
reflection explores the richest of human experiences that we can get an
adequate philosophy of life. Cf Sam keen, Gabriel
Marcel, 32-33.
[25] Sam Keen, “The Development of
the Idea of Being in Marcel’s Thought,” in The
Library of Living Philosophers, ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp and Lewis Edwin
Hahn (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1987) 17: 100.
[26] The unconditional commitments
one receives could be from a parent, lover, friend etc., in other words from
others. These unconditional commitments, for instance, are manifested in the
commitment of marriage or in the taking of the religious vows.
[27] Anderson, “The Nature of the
Human Self according to Gabriel Marcel,” 275.
[28] M. Kevin O’ Hara, “Person in the
Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel,” Philosophy
Today 8 (1964), 151.
[29] Anderson, “The Nature of the
Human Self according to Gabriel Marcel,” 274.
[30] Anderson, “The Nature of the
Human Self according to Gabriel Marcel,” 274.
[31] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 28.
[32] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 28.
[33]Arthur Luther, “Marcel’s
Metaphysics of We Are,” Philosophy Today
10 (1966), 199. See also Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith
and Reality, 68-69.
[34] Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 68-69.
[35] Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 172-173.
[36] Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 174-175.
[37] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 33-34.
[38] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 34.
[39] Anderson, “The Nature of the
Human Self according to Gabriel Marcel,” 280.
[40] Manimala, Being, Person and Community, 160.
[41] Manimala, Being, Person and Community, 162. See also Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 35.
[43] That is recognition of the other
as ‘being.’
[44] Manimala, Being, Person and Community, 163.
[45]
One of the best examples of unconditional fidelity is marriage vow the
partners in marriage make to each other.
[46] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 36-37.
[47] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 40-41. See also Gabriel Marcel, Mystery of Being, Vol. 1: Reflection and Mystery. Tr. by G.S. Fraser. (Indiana: Gateway Editions,
1950), 52.
[48] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 41.
[49] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 41-43.
[50] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 43-44.
[51] Marcel calls this innate longing
for communication as ‘nostalgia for being,’ or ‘exigence for transcendence.’
Cf. Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 40-41.
[52] It also refers to the ‘persons’
in the society and God at the transcendental level.
[53] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 26.
[54] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 29.
[55] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 29-30.
[56] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 30.
[57] Marcel uses the term “person” to
refer to a whole person. This understanding takes us back to his notion of
being which I believe is very holistic. Here implies being who is incarnate and
a being who is transcendent and a fully realized being.
[58] Being, here understood as
ontologically intersubjecitive.
[59] https://20th-centuryphilosophy.wikispaces.com/Marcel+on+Presence+and+Intersubjectivity, accessed on
13/3/2012.
[60]
Cf Erwin W. Straus and Michael A. Machado, “Gabriel Marcel’s Notion of
Incarnate Being,” in The Library of
Living Philosophers ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp and Lewis Edwin Hahn
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1987) 17: 123.
[61] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 28.
