Abstract
In our normal everyday encounters with other people it is generally assumed that the knowledge we have and the language we use to describe and communicate about things and events in the physical and social world of which we are part is intersubjective, that is, it is shared by the people with whom we may communicate and co-act. Indeed, this assumed intersubjectivity of cognition and language would seem to be a precondition for any co-action and linguistic communication to take place among people about things which exist in the so called “outer”, publicly observable physical and social world. Arguably, it is a precondition for our very notion of a publicly observable physical and social world, i.e. a world that may be observed and described objectively and truthfully from a so called third-person view.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
To spell it out, behind questions such as “do we mean the same thing when we talk about ‘pain’ - or, for that matter about other mental or internal states such as ‘memory’ or ‘recognition’ - lies the assumption that such terms are no more randomly applied to mental or internal states of human beings than ‘oak’ and ‘ash’ are randomly applied to trees. Indeed, to take such questions seriously is already, albeit implicitly, to endorse certain assumptions of how language functions in communicative contexts. Thus, it is implied and assumed that it is possible for language users together to identify - if only rudimentarily - what they are talking about (e.g. some particular states or properties of our mind, or some sensations felt somewhere in our body), and that, on the basis of such common consent, it is possible to investigate whether the implications of those terms are in fact the same for everyone - and whether we in fact use these terms to refer to the same sort of “things”. Conversely, such questions cannot be asked in any sensible way, nor may these terms be “mentioned” without or independently of how language and its terms are used to refer to actual things or events.
- 2.
I am not saying that the fact that we have a language with terms for both objects in reality and pains in bodies proves the existence of objects in reality and pains in bodies, nor that all and every concrete statement we put forward about either objects or pains are always or infallibly correct. What I am saying is that we cannot begin to discuss or investigate language and the use of language to talk about such things as objects or pains without assuming, generally, that both objects in reality and pains in bodies exist as things that we may have knowledge of and use language to talk correctly about. One cannot take part in this kind of philosophers’ discussion without committing oneself epistemologically.
- 3.
The importance of this intersubjectivity of human cognition, communication and co-action, becomes clear when we consider that a substantial part of our knowledge of both material reality and of the societies in which we live and co-act with others, does not rely on first hand personal experiences, but rather is knowledge we have adopted or acquired from others. In this sense knowledge of reality thus acquired resembles knowledge communicated to us by others about their mental states, and in the sense, furthermore, that both kinds of knowledge relies on and presupposes the conditions of intersubjectivity of cognition and use of language outlined above.
- 4.
As argued extensively elsewhere (Praetorius 2000), this assumed intersubjectivity of cognition, language and of the notion ‘truth’ can neither be proved nor doubted without being conceded, and hence will have to be taken granted as a principle.
- 5.
There is of course the possibility that what he means is merely that he is not sure of the correct implications and application of the statement - but that is a quite different matter.
- 6.
For thorough investigations of this development, see Tomasello and Rakoczy (2003).
References
Bruner J (1983) Child’s talk. Learning to use language. Norton, London
Mead GH (1934) Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Praetorius N (2000) Principles of cognition. Language and action. Essays on the foundations of a science of psychology. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London
Tomasello M, Rakoczy H (2003) What makes human cognition unique? From individual to shared to collective intentionality. Mind Lang 18:121–147
Wittgenstein L (1945/1953) Anscombe GEM, Rees R (eds) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Praetorius, N. (2010). Intersubjectivity, Cognition, and Language. In: Schmicking, D., Gallagher, S. (eds) Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2646-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2646-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2645-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2646-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)