Inter-subjective

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?

It’s all right here.

amazon.com/Subjective-Inters … 761&sr=8-1

Hey, no breaks for lazy old me?

Going back to the OP - Inter-subjective is a concept I employ a great deal myself. To put it simply,

Objective = true in all possible worlds

Subjective = true for me

Inter-subjective = true for us

Objectivity arises from the existence of a thing or the validity of a value whether or not there is a perceiver to perceive it. Subjectivity arises from what I know to perceive, and inter-subjectivity is what I perceive that, by the operation of my mind/brain/society/humanity I and others like me know or realize that it is something with truth in the context perceived.

I use it particularly in discussions of ethics. Can moral values be said to be objective, i.e. true in all possible worlds? I don’t think so. A world in which intelligent life doesn’t exist, or a God, would have no extra-mentally existing morality in the same way that a rock exists apart from our perceiving it. Can moral values be said to be subjective? Yes, but it seems clear there is something about at least some moral values that require a nearly universal application in a social context. To say that I believe murder to be wrong but someone else has the right to commit it is almost a moral equivalent of a fallacy, because I can’t believe it is wrong to kill me yet at the same time allow someone to kill me without reproach, not to mention my own self-preservation instinct in the equation.

But what you can say is this - in a social context the collection of human beings working toward common survival creates certain emergent phenomena that requires the members to participate in a way that promotes societies goals of protection. Then you start to get toward an intersubjectivity. Humans qua humans will work in a social context in a certain way and thus a “truth” emerges that applies equally to all members of that society.

Funny I always did think that word only dealt with the Husserl quote “that which first strikes us before analyzing it and making it into something else in our minds”. But now seeing it in that social context, sheds new light.