You lookin' for trouble? Came to the right place...

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

an answer, which is "overcoming differences of perspective". So it's useful, because it succinctly forestalls the unnecessary baggage of "subjective" and "objective". — bongo fury

You lookin' for trouble? Came to the right place... — bongo fury

: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!

Take marriage. Either you are married, or you are not. You don't get to choose from moment to moment, and in this sense it is not subjective. You go through a ceremony involving other people and you become married, or you cease to be married. Stuff objectively happens, and that makes you married, and if it doesn't happen right, the wrong person officiates or one party is disqualified by already being married or too young or whatever, then marriage didn't happen.

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.

One day, I'm going to need to say this, and hopefully, if my memory won't fail me, I'll simply quote you! — TheMadFool

Or, you could say "I'm your huckleberry."

What confuses me to no end is the word combination, inter and subjectivity. I immediately think of oxymorons like bitter-sweet and the movie True Lies. :smile:

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.

Intersubjectivity is quite a going research concern in psychology and philosophy. It has to do with trying to make sense of the differences between ‘I’, ‘you’ and ‘we’, first person subjective experience , 2nd pesos I-Thou interactions and 3rd person objectivity as well as socially normative structures. Their arguments range from the claim that the primordial sense of self is mediated by interpersonal influences (Ratcliffe 2017) to the more radical view that the self is entirely constructed by interpersonal dynamics (Maclaren 2008, (McGann, and De Jaegher 2009).
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.

Thanks all for the answers, very helpful.

When everyone thinks something is true but it is not made true by anything other than that. For example: "Money is valuable". Is it objectively true? Well, the piece of paper is hardly worth anything and is very cheap to make so no. Is it "subjectively true"? Well, if I write 100$ on a piece of paper it won't suddenly become valuable so no.

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.

What confuses me to no end is the word combination, inter and subjectivity. I immediately think of oxymorons like bitter-sweet and the movie True Lies. :smile:

The word "inter" suggests a group of people and the word "subjectivity" is usually associated with one person. — TheMadFool

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.

intersubjectivity takes the personhood out of the intended concept and replaces it with the more generalized notion of subjectivity — javra

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.

but those who thought up the concept of intersubjectivity seem to have done so with personhood as a bridge that's already been crossed. — TheMadFool

I'm not clear on what you mean and I'd like to better understand you. Care to elaborate?

I'm not clear on what you mean and I'd like to better understand you. Care to elaborate? — javra

Personhood is assumed in intersubjectivity given only persons can have worldviews.

Ah. Got it now. As regards those who initially thought up the concept, point taken. It is expresses as applying to persons, rather than to subjective beings at large. Myself, I'm not that anthropocentric. But it is sometimes expressed as "agreement" or "mutual understanding". So I don't believe its limited to worldviews.