You might be thinking of it in some philosophical sense that youâve read somewhere, but the word itself means those things above and is originated from the Greek Î˝ÎżáżŚĎ for âmindâ, as the faculty - not like âbrainâ, the physical component.
Interesting. I ran across ânousâ in Plato btw. I read translations, so I probably got the proper thoughtâŚbut sometimes such definitions can just flip things overâŚ
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?
OK, then yes; thatâs what I class as âimplicitâ.
I tend to use âintuitionâ for the neurological process of determining a sub-cognitive conclusion from the implicit systems of the body and brain.
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 donât think so. A world in which intelligent life doesnât 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 canât 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 âtruthâ emerges that applies equally to all members of that society.
Funny I always did think that word only dealt with the Husserl quote âthat which first strikes us before analyzing it and making it into something else in our mindsâ. But now seeing it in that social context, sheds new light.
I will confess ignorance in that I have not read Husserl (I wonât google the quote and then pretend I know all about it), but that definition sounds more like the concept of intuition or subjectivity rather than intersubjectivity.
When I hear inter subjectivity being about understanding eachothers connection(s) I usually only justified it with the only thing that I felt it could be justified with. Not just with another individual but all individuals. That it should be the start of the focus of reality. The consensus of all individuals agreeing that the start of focus is already there. This one reality. Then Iâm guessing congnition starts. And as more of this one reality gets out of focus it pops back in as another start of agreed subjectivity.
âIn Lacanâs 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.â
So why canât this one reality be in different forms of pure mind. Like ethics im gessing being the GOOD. So what I know of ethics is that it is only the process of us recognizing pure mind together.
When something happens we are not only saying that it is a multiplicityâa pure multiplicity, and we are not only saying that it is something in a worldâsomething which exists here and now. âSomething happensâ is something like a cut in the continuum of the world, something which is new, something also which disappearsâwhich appears, but also which disappears. Because happening is when appearing is the same thing as disappearing.
The important movement for educative purposes is here that from void to event to new subject. An explication of Badiouâs (2005) mathematical meta-ontology leads us to a sort of fidelity always âleaking into infinityâ as it resituates itself in the language it is compelled to convene.