Does that mean that you think inter-subjectivity does not have to include actually grasping the same thing? But only requires that the thing to be grasped is the same?
objet petit a wrote:I ran across this term in a prior discussion with TheStumps (here). It is an interesting term that has many meanings and can refer to many different thoughts.
perhaps I should start with a limited description of the term:
Inter-subjectivity is an ambiguous term that is used in many fields, not in the last place that of psycho-analysis. It is used to describe something that several subjects experience. In that sense it is a subjective experience, but since several subjects (hypothetically) experience it, it is often (but not always) used as a 'nous' in the sense of phenomenology.
The question what the word means is a difficult one. To the best of my knowledge the term is (American-) English of the twentieth century. However, it's usage is ambiguous in the sense that many separate writers have tried to connect the term to several other key-issues in their research. Husserl used it as that which first strikes us before analyzing it and making it into something else in our minds. Edith Stein investigated it in the sense of empathy, which seems to contradict the normal experience of this moment to individuals. Karl Gustav Jung uses inter-subjectivity as a denotation for 'objective' thoughts in the sense of Plato's logoi, which he understands as arch-types. In the Freudian branch of psycho-analysis the term is understood as responsiveness to the surroundings, which is translated by Lacan in his 'discours de l'autre'. In Lacan's version the inter-subjective exists in the Other: by understanding that this is about oneself, thus creating the thought of inter-subjectivity in the mind of the subject, while it does not have to be present to be understood as such.
To me this term is interesting in the sense of the question of empathy and 'le discours de l'autre'. In the sens of empathy I must conclude that there is a something that fore goes thought that connects us, upon which I can cognitively found my understanding of the 'Other' (be it 'Other' or 'other'). This thought is supported by Spinoza's 'Tractatus Theologico-Politicus': That all prophets caught on to a divine thought and translated it into the language of their time. It seems to have the same elements as my above thought, which can also be explained into Freud's 'Es', Über-Ich' and 'Ich'.
Anyway, I would like all thoughts on the matter since it is a subject that is most interesting to me, let alone a subject which is still in the process of defining a word.
objet petit a wrote:Does that mean that you think inter-subjectivity does not have to include actually grasping the same thing (phenomenon)? But only requires that the thing to be grasped (noumenon) is the same? Or does that mean that you think there is (and inter-subjectivity is that) some underlying level, before cognition in which a direct connection between things (beings as substratum) exists (okay, that just might be a noumenon as well)?
JohnJones wrote:TheStumps wrote:How the word relates to me is
How does a word "relate to me"?
The word is the public definition, otherwise you aren't using a word. We already know what the word means to you.
I'm not really sure what more there is to say about it...it's a shared "thing" in some fashion, yet divergent, even if only divergent by time of first-hand experience.
It's cognitive and emotional in capacity (nous & empathetic) dependent on the people involved - how the "thing" affects them, which is based on what their bio-neurological and psychological make up is.
So...depending on what the "situation/thing" is, and dependent on the people involved, it will be cognitive, emotional; and all areas in between possible.
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media