Intersubjectivity
Intersubjectivity (inter Latin: between and subject: person, actor, etc.) assumes that a ( complex ) facts for multiple viewers is equally recognizable and understandable: it is, for example, agree on how one perceives something, how classifies it or what it means ( for example, " Bicycles are a useful invention ").
The term is both distinguishable from subjectivity: " Subjective " is called, which is only accessible to individuals and what no generality is claimed. Typical examples are only accessible through introspection facts or judgments of taste ( " The spinach does not taste good to me ," "I would like to even go to Iceland ").
On the other hand, inter-subjectivity but is distinguished from objectivity: objective facts are directly provable, regardless of conditions, which lie about in individual viewers or their context. Typical examples are mathematical and logical truths ("1 1 = 2", " A subject can not get both a property at the same time and in the same respect as not to come " ), after a few positions in general all facts that exist in the outside world, the natural properties of material objects relate and principle for each are unequivocally identified.
The term intersubjectivity, however, as the notions of subjectivity and objectivity, used and spelled differently in many theories. In particular it plays a role when it should be emphasized that certain problems can only be addressed adequately if relationships between people are based on their respective viewpoints. Such positions are represented in a variety of disciplines, eg in the field of philosophy of science, political theory, ethics, or the theory of discourse ( eg, in a consensus theory of truth ). Intersubjectivity is subject to fundamental debates in philosophy and the social sciences (such as in values controversy or positivist dispute ).
Intersubjectivity as a cognitive and epistemological criterion
A common classification distinguishes epistemological issues then, to what extent they are generally accessible, ie inter alia, can be detected or may become applicable. The following types can be distinguished, for example:
- Facts that only from the perspective of the first person are in principle identifiable or can have validity. Here could be about to judgments of taste, so think about aesthetic or culinary preferences, some theorists would but here categorises ethical judgments. Also introspectively accessible facts (eg toothache or thoughts) belong to this group.
- Matters that are not closed to more than one person, but may be accessible only to persons in certain contexts and with certain characteristics in principle, so that only these groups of persons therein may be rationally justified or rationally compelled to keep the relevant judgments to be true. Some theorists would about religious or ethical truth claims situate. (see subculture )
- Matters that are accessible to each principle. ( The word " principle " here begins each additional clauses as a " ... is a sufficiently keen " and the like. ). Here could be classified, for example, mathematical truths and diskutablerweise at all scientific facts.
" Intersubjectivity " here could at least get the last two groups, according to the narrower uses of maybe just the latter group. All these assignments and examples are certainly controversial. At the very least makes such a coarse model clear in what sense " intersubjectivity " as the context epistemological discussions as quality criterion of scientific knowledge can be used: the "hard" sciences seem to grasp " intersubjectively accessible " truths.
Especially the part of the so-called behaviorism, the criterion of verifiability was suggested by empirical perception ( directly or, if necessary, by means of certain aids). Only such facts can therefore be relevant or at all capable of truth for empirical studies. This so-called verification criterion has several difficulties, such as what " empirical" to " theory " refers to the definition of. As a " theory " can be paid to the application of theoretical terms, as well as certain measure and measurement conventions or even conceptual schemes. What obeys this verification criterion, apparently would also intersubjectively accessible (for multiple or principle, all people).
, One can, however, to respond to such problems as behavioral verification criteria, use " intersubjectivity " even weaker. Different explications of the application criteria are conceivable. Intuitively, one would think, for example, an " intersubjective comprehensibility " for sound, the greater the amount of shared beliefs, vocabulary or monitoring and evaluation conventions. In this direction go suggestions by Donald Davidson on the conditions of communication and understanding at all.
Another way of " intersubjectivity " to be used in a weaker sense as a criterion for science, is to relate this not to empirical verification, but on potential or actual consensus. Depending on how this is made explicit, such proposals by various parties are criticized. The Methodical culturalism, for example, is considered insufficient if a statement could be called scientific because they generally would find consent. Scientific fact can not depend on random consensuses. Instead, says Peter Janich of " trans-subjectivity ". By this he means otherwise than by any subjectivity independence of the data.
Intersubjectivity in ethics
Moral judgments diverge among individual persons and partly cultural backgrounds. About it matches are often achieve much heavier than about experience in judgments. This is the problem background metaethischer discussions about the reality of moral truths: while moral realists insist on one way or another on a truth of moral judgments, which is then explained differently, speak moral anti- realists for different reasons and with different explanations moral judgments truth simply from and understand it as an expression of interests or feelings; during metaethical relativist perspective on the validity of certain conditions that, if necessary, or the only certain groups of people, contexts Ä. are met. Is required that can be true only what is " objectively " epistemically accessible, one could defend the view that decides between moral realism and anti-realism, whether moral truths are objectively accessible.
If one understands " intersubjectively " as weakening of "objective" and represents one, is that as true, justified or understood regardless of what is " intersubjective " accessible, such problems complicate. Until further notice, such an approach tends to relativistic positions.
Debates on these issues form a major part of classical and contemporary meta-ethical literature. Also the assessment of classical ethical positions and their different elaborations modern in its application "inter- subjective" criteria is exegetically and systematically controversial. For example, you could both präferenzutilitaristischen, contract theory as discourse ethics and partly virtuous ethical positions find elements of an " inter-subjective " approach, which you can then defend or attack for several reasons. Conversely, we could ascribe a more "objective" foundation, for example, various deontological positions and defend or attack this.
Intersubjectivity instead of " egocentrism "
The diverse theorists contact either against a stretto on "objective" truth claims or theoretical Erstrangigkeit and independence " of the subject " or " the self " as the central authority for explanations, justifications, ethical facts or the like. Well-known examples are:
- Discourse- ethical theories such as that of Jürgen Habermas, with its emphasis that ethical standards can justifiably be valid only on inter- subjective understanding of these standards and the principles of discourse about them
- The hermeneutic and semantic theory proposed by Donald Davidson, with its emphasis that only intersubjectively shared beliefs, concepts, etc. allow to attribute opinions and intentions and even to interpret linguistic expressions and communicate
- Anthropology and responsibility and virtue ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre, with its emphasis that people only develop or acquire virtues, responsibilities, authority and goods because and after they are initially and continuously dependent on other people
Such theories for the " intersubjectivity " in a certain sense is central to, on the other hand also criticized. For example, greet a number of French philosophers who were popular in the 1960s to the 1990s, overcoming a central position of an isolated subject, but they present the focus on " inter-subjectivity " does not go far enough. An example of such reviews is Emmanuel Levinas, therefore, intersubjective relations only result of subsequent judgments will, but where an original commitment to "the other " forward- lying, then what the subject, the more I am only konstituiere and intersubjective in response to this Inpflichtnahme "Relationships" Empower.
Intersubjectivity as a concept in sociology
In sociology, says intersubjectivity that certain experiences for several individuals are comparable. This comparability allows symbols or signs, such as the words of a language, for different individuals have the same (or similar ) meaning. So until the intersubjectivity makes effective communication possible. The production of intersubjectivity can be problematic under various conditions. Belonging to the actors, for example, different social groups, then the same characters or symbols can be assigned different meanings due to different experience backgrounds.
In the application of qualitative methods is the concept of intersubjectivity is of particular importance because it is the prerequisite for the understanding of meanings in other ( sub) cultures. In these cultures, events or situations other meanings could be assigned, as in the culture of researchers. It is therefore crucial to have some access to these other cultures to share their experience and interpretation horizon to understand events from the perspective of that culture. Only when one describes possible differences in the meanings of symbols or characters that findings are comprehensible to others and can thus meet this criterion of objectivity.
For the phenomenological sociology is the intersubjective character of communal living world of central importance. It enables the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge accessible in common stocks and practices.