Gabriel Marcel and Communication

1.0 Introduction

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

1.0 Introduction- 1

1.1 Clarification of Terms 1

1.1.1 Problem and Mystery- 2

1.1.2 Primary and Secondary Reflection- 2

1.2 Misconception of Being as the Problem in the World of Communication  3

1.2.1 Being and Having- 4

1.2.2 Functionalism- 5

1.3 Proper Understanding of Being- 6

1.3.1 Love- 7

1.3.2 Availability- 8

1.3.3 Fidelity and Faith- 9

1.3.4 Hope- 10

1.4 Implications of Marcel’s Philosophy of Communication  12

1.4.1 Human Person as Essentially Communicative- 12

1.4.2 Intersubjectivity as a Model for Communication- 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY-- 15

---

[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.

[42] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/#1,  accessed on 28/3/12.

[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.