Is intersubjectivity a coherent concept?
I must confess I’ve never been able to wrap my head around what people mean by this term with any precision. It seems as though it essentially means shared subjectivity in a symmetrical way, which doesn’t make sense to me. It seems that shared subjectivity is always asymmetrical, where one subjectivity identifies and connects with perceived subjectivity in one of its modes. Do I misunderstand? Thanks.
Comments (14)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Intersubjectivity&expand=&child=&forums=&or=Relevance&discenc=&mem=&tag=&pg=1&date=All&Checkboxes%5B%5D=titles&Checkboxes%5B%5D=WithReplies&or=Relevance&user=&disc=&Checkboxes%5B%5D=child
:rofl: One day, I'm going to need to say this, and hopefully, if my memory won't fail me, I'll simply quote you!
Or did it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_broom
Language is intersubjective too. Words don't mean whatever I want them to mean, but they don't have a meaning apart from what speakers and listeners understand them to mean either.
Money and property likewise.
Or, you could say "I'm your huckleberry."
The word "inter" suggests a group of people and the word "subjectivity" is usually associated with one person.
The idea behind subjectivity-objectivity in science at least seems to be that of more the merrier i.e. if only a few scientists report an observation, it's usually ignored but if many report the observation in question, the credibility ratings rise. One reason for this rule of thumb seems to be that one/few person/people can make a boo-boo but it's improbable for everyone to goof up.
Compare the above scientific principle (more likely that something is true if many observe it as such) with intersubjectivity, defined as basically shared worldviews. Intersubjectivity seems to be claiming that even if many people converge on the same weltanschauung, that particular worldview remains subjective in nature which contradicts the scientific principle alluded vide supra.
How do we make sense of what appears as a frank inconsistency?
The key point that matters, aids in resolving this apparent inconsistency, is the fact that there are a large number of worldviews and none have been proven as the worldview that can make sense of it all. Thus, even if a particular worldview has a huge following, it remains subjective for not all people accept it as the one that explains reality as we know it.
In the case of scientific observations, the observations are identical, same, in all cases leaving no room for the slightest doubt that there's something amiss with the observations.
In summary, intersubjectivity is simply a name for shared philosophies about life that takes into account the uncertainty regarding the truth of each and every worldview that is on offer for consumption to philosophers and laypeople alike.
It has been argued in favor of the first view that in normative contexts where there seems to be a shared worldview, subjectivity must still be operative, otherwise the ’we’ wouldn’t make sense, since it presupppses a collectivity.
But if everyone believes that money is valuable, suddenly money becomes valuable. And if people stop believing so, it becomes worthless. I would say morality falls here too.
The same can be said of “interpersonal”.
All forms of human intercourse are interpersonal – yes, sex, but also commerce and communication, and so forth - wherein two or more persons in some way or another and to some extent converge to traverse a commonly shared path in relation to their awareness, if in relation to nothing else. On a related note, “understanding” holds the etymology of “inter” – “standing”.
I so far find that the principal difference between “interpersonal” and “intersubjective” is as follows: intersubjectivity takes the personhood out of the intended concept and replaces it with the more generalized notion of subjectivity. Bees in a beehive share an intersubjectivity, such as when one bee communicates the location of pollen to others, but this communication between bees cannot be effortlessly expressed as interpersonal, since bees are not construed to be persons.
If you want to split hairs, yes, but those who thought up the concept of intersubjectivity seem to have done so with personhood as a waypoint that's already been crossed. Just saying.
I'm not clear on what you mean and I'd like to better understand you. Care to elaborate?
Personhood is assumed in intersubjectivity given only persons can have worldviews.