Philosophy 206a: Subjective, Intersubjective, and Objective
Contents
Introduction
Section 1. The 'Jectives and the Real
Section 2: The 'Jectives and the True
Section 3: The 'Jectives and the Effective
Introduction
I almost titled this article "Meet the 'Jectives - Sub, Intersub, and Ob" but I realised that would have defeated the purpose of search engines.
In this article I will show (1) that we need all three of these concepts, and (2) what they mean and how they should be used.
The subjective - objective dichotomy is perhaps the most misunderstood and confusion generating pair of concepts in philosophy. Even experienced philosophers can get tangled up in them. The key to understanding them is to realise that each has a different meaning according to whether it is being used to talk about the real, or the true, or the effective.
A surprisingly wide range of philosophical concepts can be defined with the help of three quantitative concepts: singularity, grouped plurality and totality. This is the case with the three 'jective concepts.
In what follows, my use of G1, G2 and G3 refers to my thesis that the central concepts in each subject area of philosophy fall into three groups.
Section 1: The 'Jectives and the Real
In matters of reality or perceptual knowledge, the 'jectives fall into the Three Groups as follows:
G1.(quantity: singularity): subjective
G2.(quantity: grouped plurality): intersubjective
G3.(quantity: totality): objective
G1. The subjective, in this sense, is me. There's only one of me.
G2. The intersubjective, in this sense, is selves. There's only one of me, but there are several selves. Selves are a grouped plurality.
G3. The objective, in this sense, is whatever is other than me and other than selves. But, from God's point of view, the unqualified point of view (the 'view from nowhere'), the objective includes me, selves, and all.
Section 2: The 'Jectives and the True
In matters of truth and propositional knowledge, the 'jectives fall into the Three Groups as follows:
G1.(quantity: singularity): objective
G2.(quantity: grouped plurality): intersubjective
G3.(quantity: totality): subjective
G1. A claim that X is objective, in this sense, is a claim that X has an absolute nature, that there is exactly one way that X is (or, to put it another way, that X is relative only to the totality of things).
Most philosophers hold that contingent truth is objective in this sense. Another way of putting this is to say that there is only one way the world is, so there is only one true account of how things are or were.
G2: A claim that X is intersubjective is, in this sense, a claim that X has a relative nature, that its nature is relative to how it is held to be by different groups. Thus it is a claim that X has several different natures.
Moral Relativism is the claim that morality is, in this sense, intersubjective. It is the claim that there is no single correct moral code; that what is morally right and wrong depends, not merely in fact but also in principle, upon what different groups hold to be morally right and wrong.
G3. A claim that X is subjective, in this sense, is a claim that it has as many natures as there are minds that have the concept X. It is a claim that X is relative to each and to all conceptual instances of the concept X.
Aesthetic worth is often claimed to be subjective in this sense. A Latin phrase expresses this claim about aesthetic worth: De gustibus non est disputandum - It's pointless to argue matters of taste.
Section 3: The 'Jectives and the Effective
In matters of cause-effect and practical knowledge, the 'jectives fall into the Three Groups as follows:
G1 (quantity: singularity): subjective
G2 (quantity: grouped plurality): intersubjective
G3 (quantity: totality): objective
G1 My somatic (bodily) skills are subjective. They are my learned ability to make my body do things. For example, walking and handling are somatic kills. Only I have my somatic skills. No other person can directly make my body do things, nor can I directly make any other person's body do things.
G2 Our social skills are intersubjective. A social skill is a social group's ability to cause an effect that only it, as a group, can cause. For example, only a sports team can play a team sport. For another example, only voters for Joseph Blow can elect him to office. For another example, only teams of pickers can pick the California grape harvest before it rots. Such skills have to be intersubjectively coordinated in order to be effective.
G3 Technological knowledge is objective. It works for us all. Technological effects are effects that anyone can cause. Technology can be a means to anyone's ends. A gun will work just as well for a target shooter as it will for a murderer. An airliner will work to carry passengers across the U.S. just as well as it will work to allow terrorists to bring down a tower of the World Trade Center. Agritechnolgy will work just as well to feed the starving as it will to provide more food for those who already have too much. Technological knowledge is, in principle, available to us all.
Appendix: The Three Groups in this topic
The 'jectives in perceptual knowledge (knowledge of the real):
G1: Subjective (I)
G2: Intersubjective (we)
G3: Objective (it)
The 'jectives in propositional knowledge (knowledge that p is true):
G1: Objective (absolute in nature)
G2: Intersubjective (group-relative in nature)
G3: Subjective (individual-relative in nature)
The 'jectives in practical knowledge (knowledge how to cause effects):
G1: Subjective (my somatic skills)
G2: Intersubjective (our group skills)
G3: Objective (technology)
I guess I use subjective to describe that which is subjective and intersubjective, because the lines between the two are blurred. For example, can we really say that every person reacts differently to a work of art? I imagine more than one has this precise reaction to this: "Whatever, I don't get it. This is boring. Let's go somewhere else." If so, then appreciating that artwork would be intersubjective.
Or maybe I'm totally mangling how this works. I don't feel like I'm grokking what you've written. And I totally don't get "The 'Jectives and the Effective." Can't you break that down into G1, G2, and G3 like you did the others?
On re-reading this I see that I left out a very important word in my explanation of the meaning of 'objective' in Section 2 (G1) - I left out the word 'one'. So I have not only put it in now I have emphasized it in bold.
Thank you for reading this and for commenting. You say you don't quite grok it, but especially not Section 3.
As to Section 3, I'll have to think about that some more. I wasn't very happy with it myself.
But let me see if I can simplify Sections 1 and 2 by leaving out the clutter of my Three Groups.
Think of these Sections in terms of points of view.
Section 1: From a (humanly conceived) impersonal or God-like point of view concerned with the reality of things:
'I' have a subjective nature - I am me, a self.
'We' are intersubjective in nature - we are two or more selves.
'It' is objective in nature - it is not me and not a self, it is a thing, not a person.
Section 2: From an all too human and fallible point of view making knowlege-claims:
A claim that X is objective in nature is a claim that there is only one way X is, now and at any time. Thus a claim about X, unless it is a mistaken claim, can be termed 'objective'.
A claim that X is intersubjective in nature is a claim that there are several ways X is, one way for each human social group's predominant account of X. Thus each claim about X is termed 'intersubjective' or 'socially relative'.
A claim that X is subjective in nature is a claim that it has as many natures as there are individual humans that have a concept of X. Thus all claims about X are termed 'subjective' or 'individual-relative'.
I hope this makes Sections 1 and 2 clearer for you. As I said, I have to reconsider 3.
That makes a lot more sense to me now, thanks. I look forward to section 3's revision.