Inter-subjective

Yep.

If you empathize with someone losing their loved one; you aren’t actually grasping the same thing…that’s impossible to do.
That was their loved one…not yours.
But if you’ve lost a loved one, or have a dear loved one, then your emotions to the situation are capable of projecting the empathy of their pain and sorry; so you can grasp the thing (the pain and sorry of losing a loved one).

Does that mean that it concerns the same noumenon for all subjects involved in the inter-subjectivity to you? If so, does that come to a ‘nous’ like Plato’s logoi, or to an empathic (‘real’) connection between the subjects not unlike the Spinoza example I gave?

First part: Yes.
Second part: both; that depends on the situation and the people.

Would you elaborate?

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.

Here we go again. The empty lure of the “what does it really mean?” or the “something else”, quickly followed by the refication of anything we please.

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.

How do we conclude that from phrases like “what it means” or “what X really is” that the “it” or the “X” is a noumenon or even anything at all?

Are you bored?
The word relates to me in association.
It’s meaning being attached to other concepts reflecting back onto it as a concept.

He was asking what the phrase, in the philosophical sense, means to people since it means a wide range of ambiguous things to many differing people.

The very topic asks for philosophical interpretation in the opening post quite clearly.

@ The Stumps:
What does ‘nous’ mean to you exactly?

@JJ:
How is it that we can say anything about the noumena?

reason, knowledge, rational. (the cognitive effect)

I thought it meant a solid thing-in-itself: that from which the word noumenon is derived. Am I mistaken, or confusing it with a different term?

You might be thinking of it in some philosophical sense that you’ve read somewhere, but the word itself means those things above and is originated from the Greek νοῦς for “mind”, as the faculty - not like “brain”, the physical component.

Interesting. I ran across ‘nous’ in Plato btw. I read translations, so I probably got the proper thought…but sometimes such definitions can just flip things over…
:slight_smile:

Concerning inter-subjective:

Not much help I guess. If I would say that to me inter-subjective can only refer to my cognitive phenomenon of what is inter-subjective, while it can only be an intu"itive feeling as a noumenon, would you agree with that or not?

I’m not fully certain on the way you are using “intuitive”, but generally speaking; yes, that works as a description of the same.

I used intu"itive as a reference to that which exists outside of our thoughts, but that we grasp as space and time: the a priori intu"itions.
:slight_smile:

OK, then yes; that’s what I class as “implicit”.
I tend to use “intuition” for the neurological process of determining a sub-cognitive conclusion from the implicit systems of the body and brain.

Either interpretation; yes.

Hmmm…any Jungians here to give me an alternate meaning?

I got a book called subjective, objective, intersubjective. It goes on and on about this stuff.

Really? Would you be so kind as to share a bit of itś wisdom?