Intersubjective

[Dontaskme]

Intersubjectivity means: Existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind.

Can something be subjectively objective?
Yes, all objective facts are subjective, and one strategy to allow for this is to use the word 'inter-subjective'. People sometimes use 'objective fact' to mean a fact that is inter-subjective, verified by a shared subjective experience. It is hard to see how an observation can be an objective fact.

All concepts are subjective and even objective truths such as math and tautologies are only subjectively objective.

Objectivity is an illusion that doesn't exist except as a concept in this conception. Concepts have no objective standpoint, because concepts are known only subjectively and that which is known, knows nothing.

Immanuel Kant saw moral judgments as both subjective and objective in an ingenious way. My moral law is my moral judgment and in that way a subjective process; it is my moral judgment because I say or think it. But it is objective because if it really is a moral imperative, then it must be a moral imperative whether I know it or not.


.

[Skepdick]

Intersubjectivity means: Existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind.

Can something be subjectively objective?
Yes, all objective facts are subjective, and one strategy to allow for this is to use the word 'inter-subjective'. People sometimes use 'objective fact' to mean a fact that is inter-subjective, verified by a shared subjective experience. It is hard to see how an observation can be an objective fact.

All concepts are subjective and even objective truths such as math and tautologies are only subjectively objective.

Objectivity is an illusion that doesn't exist except as a concept in this conception. Concepts have no objective standpoint, because concepts are known only subjectively and that which is known, knows nothing.

Immanuel Kant saw moral judgments as both subjective and objective in an ingenious way. My moral law is my moral judgment and in that way a subjective process; it is my moral judgment because I say or think it. But it is objective because if it really is a moral imperative, then it must be a moral imperative whether I know it or not.


.

Objectivity starts where my mind ends.

All other minds are objective to me.

[Dontaskme]

Objectivity starts where my mind ends.

All other minds are objective to me.

Where does your mind end and another mind begin?

Can Subject and Object be separated?

[Skepdick]

Objectivity starts where my mind ends.

All other minds are objective to me.

Where does your mind end and another mind begin?

Can Subject and Object be separated?

My own mind ends, and my body starts long before any other mind begins.

[Dontaskme]

Objectivity starts where my mind ends.

All other minds are objective to me.

Where does your mind end and another mind begin?

Can Subject and Object be separated?

My own mind ends, and my body starts long before any other mind begins.

All you know then, is to know yourself objectively?

[iambiguous]

Intersubjectivity means: Existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind.

Can something be subjectively objective?
Yes, all objective facts are subjective, and one strategy to allow for this is to use the word 'inter-subjective'. People sometimes use 'objective fact' to mean a fact that is inter-subjective, verified by a shared subjective experience. It is hard to see how an observation can be an objective fact.

All concepts are subjective and even objective truths such as math and tautologies are only subjectively objective.

Objectivity is an illusion that doesn't exist except as a concept in this conception. Concepts have no objective standpoint, because concepts are known only subjectively and that which is known, knows nothing.

Immanuel Kant saw moral judgments as both subjective and objective in an ingenious way. My moral law is my moral judgment and in that way a subjective process; it is my moral judgment because I say or think it. But it is objective because if it really is a moral imperative, then it must be a moral imperative whether I know it or not.

How might this be applicable to, say, the war between Hamas and Israel? Those on both sides are individual subjects interacting with other individual subjects. And the terrible consequences resulting from the conflict are certainly objective truths.

Let's try to imagine Immanuel Kant's ingenious reaction to it.

[Skepdick]

How might this be applicable to, say, the war between Hamas and Israel? Those on both sides are individual subjects interacting with other individual subjects. And the terrible consequences resulting from the conflict are certainly objective truths.

Let's try to imagine Immanuel Kant's ingenious reaction to it.

How does anything change if you change the word "subjects" for "objects"?

Those on both sides are individual objects interacting with other individual objects. And the terrible consequences resulting from the conflict are certainly objective truths.

The subjective/objective distinction is just a conceptual/connotational game. It doesn't denote anything significant.

The contents of human minds are "subjective", but the contents of a bottle of water aren't

[Dontaskme]

How might this be applicable to, say, the war between Hamas and Israel? Those on both sides are individual subjects interacting with other individual subjects. And the terrible consequences resulting from the conflict are certainly objective truths.

IDK, maybe there are conflicting belief strategies that each side of the warring parties are willing to die for, for their own religious purposes and reasons that makes sense to some and not yet others. As long as people believe in something, conflict is inevitable.

[Skepdick]

How might this be applicable to, say, the war between Hamas and Israel? Those on both sides are individual subjects interacting with other individual subjects. And the terrible consequences resulting from the conflict are certainly objective truths.

IDK, maybe there are conflicting belief strategies that each side of the warring parties are willing to die for, for their own religious purposes and reasons that makes sense to some and not yet others. As long as people believe in something, conflict is inevitable.

Playing switcharoo with adjectives doesn't change anything on the ground.

[iambiguous]

How might this be applicable to, say, the war between Hamas and Israel? Those on both sides are individual subjects interacting with other individual subjects. And the terrible consequences resulting from the conflict are certainly objective truths.

Let's try to imagine Immanuel Kant's ingenious reaction to it.

IDK, maybe there are conflicting belief strategies that each side of the warring parties are willing to die for, for their own religious purposes and reasons that makes sense to some and not yet others. As long as people believe in something, conflict is inevitable.

"A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and/or unique personal experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside itself (called an "object"). A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. This concept is especially important in Continental philosophy, where 'the subject' is a central term in debates over the nature of the self. The nature of the subject is also central in debates over the nature of subjective experience within the Anglo-American tradition of analytical philosophy. The sharp distinction between subject and object corresponds to the distinction, in the philosophy of René Descartes, between thought and extension. Descartes believed that thought (subjectivity) was the essence of the mind, and that extension (the occupation of space) was the essence of matter. scholarly community encyclopedia

My frame of mind, however, revolves around the relationship between individual subjects and extant objects out in particular worlds understood in particular ways. In other words, historically, culturally and in terms of our own uniquely personal experiences.

There are events unfolding between Hamas and Israel that are in fact true objectively for all individual subjects over there. But it's not what the subjects there believe about these events, in my view, it's what they are able to demonstrate is in fact true for all rational people. Thus, that crucial distinction between the intersubjective empirical world around them and their own intersubjective moral reactions to it.

It's just that the religious fanatics on both sides over there reject my frame of mind -- dasein -- and insist that only their own morality is the one true morality. The irony here being that both sides champion the God of Abraham!

Now, Descartes himself posited the Christian God -- the Roman Catholic Christian God -- as the explanation for all of this.

"Descartes advocates substance dualism; he claims that matter and mind are two wholly separate substances. The main property of matter is that it has spatial extension, which the mind does not. The main property of mind is its capacity to think – it is a substance defined by its function." the collector

How does he go about demonstrating this?

Philosophically, of course. In a world of words.

And, as with the Kantians among us, what interests me about the Cartesians among us is how they themselves react intersubjectively to the war there.

[Dontaskme]

Information from the inner-net. That which is appearing here now, as it is being unwritten and read by everything. The knowledge we the subject, normally a person, has of noumenal phenomena.(In Kantian philosophy) a thing as it is in and of itself.


Neti Neti ( NET I) is an expression which means "not this, not that", or "neither this, nor that". It constitutes an analytical ponderance helping we the subject, normally a person to understand the ultimate nature of all factual phenomena by negating everything that is not factual phenomena.

Using Kant’s distinction, intersubjective agreement would seem to be not only the best evidence we can have of objective truth but constitutive of objective truth itself. (This might require a theoretically perfect intersubjective agreement under ideal conditions.) Starting from the assumption that we can have knowledge only of things as they appear in subjective experience, the only plausible sense for the term “objective” would be judgments for which there is universal intersubjective agreement, or just for which there is necessarily universal agreement. If, alternately, we decide to restrict the term “objective” to the thing as it is in itself, there would be, according to Kant, no objective knowledge. The notion of objectivity thus becomes useless, perhaps even meaningless (for, say, a verificationist).

Facing any brand of skepticism regarding knowledge of objective reality in any robust sense, we should note that the notion of there being an objective reality is independent of any particular assertion about our prospects for knowing that reality in any objective sense. One should, in other words, agree that the idea of some objective reality, existing as it is independent of any subjective perception of it, apparently makes sense even for one who holds little hope for any of us knowing that there is such a reality, or knowing anything objectively about such a reality. Perhaps our human situation is such that we cannot know anything beyond our experiences; perhaps we are, each one of us individually, confined to the theater of our own minds. Nonetheless, we can conceive what it means to assert an objective reality beyond the stream of our experiences. One cannot get out of one’s subjective impressions, it seems, to test them for reliability. The prospects for knowledge of the objective world are hampered by our essential confinement within subjective impressions.

If we can all agree intersubjectively that we the subject, normally a person, exists absolutely. We are the absolute that cannot be known.
The knowledge of all phenomena first has to be irrational in the context of it being illusory, for this illusion to be rational.
One's subjective knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of all phenonema.

[Dontaskme]

Descartes famously emphasized that subjective reality is better known than objective reality, but knowledge of the objective reality of one’s own existence as a non-physical thinking thing is nearly as basic, or perhaps as basic, as one’s knowledge of the subjective reality of one’s own thinking. For Descartes, knowledge seems to start with immediate, indubitable knowledge of one’s subjective states and proceeds to knowledge of one’s objective existence as a thinking thing. Cogito, ergo sum (usually translated as “I think, therefore I am”) expresses this knowledge. All knowledge of realities other than oneself ultimately rests on this immediate knowledge of one’s own existence as a thinking thing. One’s existence as a non-physical thinking thing is an objective existence, but it appears that Descartes infers this existence from the subjective reality of his own thinking.

From the inner-net https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

Loads of info T/here about morality too.

[Advocate]

[quote=Dontaskme post_id=674651 time=1697915244 user_id=12017]
Intersubjectivity means: Existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind.

Can something be subjectively objective?
Yes, all objective facts are subjective, and one strategy to allow for this is to use the word 'inter-subjective'. People sometimes use 'objective fact' to mean a fact that is inter-subjective, verified by a shared subjective experience. It is hard to see how an observation can be an objective fact.

All concepts are subjective and even objective truths such as math and tautologies are only subjectively objective.

Objectivity is an illusion that doesn't exist except as a concept in this conception. Concepts have no objective standpoint, because concepts are known only subjectively and that which is known, knows nothing.

Immanuel Kant saw moral judgments as both subjective and objective in an ingenious way. My moral law is my moral judgment and in that way a subjective process; it is my moral judgment because I say or think it. But it is objective because if it really is a moral imperative, then it must be a moral imperative whether I know it or not.


.
[/quote]

Reality is a consensus (inter-objective) version of our filtered individual perspectives on Actuality.

As for morality, it's contingent. Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals, truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals, etc.

[LuckyR]

The intersubjective are things that exist through agreement among humans, such as the legal system, the monetary system, gods, entities of human groups such as nations and corporations.

These entities cease to exist when humans no longer believe in them.

[Age]

The intersubjective are things that exist through agreement among humans, such as the legal system, the monetary system, gods, entities of human groups such as nations and corporations.

These entities cease to exist when humans no longer believe in them.

Besides the God word here it may well be true that what those other words are referring to will be gone when 'you', adult human beings, are gone, but what the God word refers to, EXACTLY, IS STILL HERE, when humans are NOT.