Remarks on Intersubjectivity

One of the most important insights to come out of German Idealism was the theory of intersubjectivity, and how it affects consciousness. The original formulation comes from J.G. Fichte, and was taken up and developed by the Idealist movement in Germany Britain, and America. Although Fichte is the father of intersubjectivity, I believe we can find the precursor of of the idea in Hermetic philosophy. To get us started in our brief examination of intersubjectivity lets go to a quote from Schelling "A System of Transcendental Idealism 1800" (translated by Peter Heath): "That objects really exist outside of me, ie independently of me, is something of which I can only be convinced if I am sure that they also exist when I do not intuit them. That objects existed before the individual did, is something of which he cannot be convinced by merely finding himself to be coming at a particular point in the succession, since this is simply a consequence of his second restrictedness. The sole objectivity which the world can possess for the individual is the fact of its having been intuited by intelligence outside of self. (I can also be deduced from this very fact that there must be states of nonintuiting for the individual.) The harmony we have already predetermined earlier in regard to the involuntary presentations of different intelligences, is thus at the same time to be deduced as the sole condition under which the world became objective to the individual. For the individual, these other intelligences are, as it were, the eternal bearers of the universe, and together they constitute so many indestructible mirrors of the objective world. The world through it is posited solely through the self, is independent of me, since it resides for me in the intuition of other intelligence: their common world is the archetype, whose agreement with my own presentations is the sole criterion of truth." The above quote contains a lot of ideas. So let us try to get at what Schelling is trying to tell us. Idealism is often criticized fro either being, or leading to solipsism, but as the above quote shows this is not true. It is only by interacting with other people that we can gain self-knowledge, and scientific knowledge. When we are young we learn by imitating other people. We not only learn techniques, by imitation, we also gain an idea of ourselves as an independent self. We often observe children looking to adults for cues on how to react to unexpected events. Other people become a mirror for children learning how to act and react in their society. That is why stable role-models are so important for children. Children internalize the mores and taboos of their culture from imitating the adults around them. Of course, imitation is the first step in all education; formal, and informal. The techniques of any craft must first be learned by rote. It is only after people master the basic skills of a craft or society that they can question the practice. The reason being one must be able to preform a technique to know whether it works or not. This of course, leads us to scientific or objective knowledge, and the creation of the objective world. If it were not for other people there could be no objective world. the objective world is an example of public reason. The objective is created by mutual agreement. Humans agree on properties, qualities, techniques, etc.; that can be universalized. The definition of "objective" is that it is the same for everyone. In simple terms there has to be a group of people if one is going to find out what is the same for all of them, and what they can all agree on. And this is where Fichte and Schelling part ways. Here is the difference between the subjective Idealism of Fichte and Kant, and the objective Idealism of Schelling and Hegel. Fichte does not give the objective world ontological status. In other words, the objective world is created, it is an objective view that is created by humans for humans. For Schelling and Hegel the objective world or view is a discovery not a creation: it is what exists. To sum up the two views: for Fichte and Kant the objective world is created, for Schelling and Hegel the objective world is discovered. For Fichte the goal was to subject all experience to human reason, in order to gain power over the world. While Schelling and Hegel believed that collective reasoning of humans actually discovers the nature of the cosmos. Of course for Hegel the nature of the cosmos was logic. Before proceeding to intersubjectivity and how it affects God's knowledge in Schelling and Hegel; it is instructive to take a diversion to the Hermetic doctrine that was the precursor to intersubjectivity. All of German Idealism was influenced by Hermetic philosophy. The Hermetic influence had two main sources: Jacob Bohme, and Giordano Bruno. Bohme influenced German Idealism from two sources. The first being being that all the major German Idealists read his books, even Fichte. We know from their writings both Schelling and Hegel held Bohme in high regard. The second way Bohme influenced German Idealism is through Pietism. Kant was brought up in a Pietist household. Again the two main sources in Pietism for Bohme's ideas were Bengel, and Oetinger. Both Bengel, and Oetinger were known, taught, and discussed at Tubingen university, where both Schelling and Hegel were students. (for more on Bohme, Bengel, and Oetinger see my essay "Cupid and Psyche: Part 3") The other main source of Hermetic ideas was the philosophy of Bruno. Schelling wrote a book titled "Bruno" in which the philosopher Bruno was the main person of the dialogues that are the book. The indirect influence of Bruno came from the philosophy of Spinoza. Spinoza's philosophy was heavily influenced by Bruno, and in turn Spinoza was an important influence on Schelling, and Hegel. Now let us turn to the doctrine that I believe was a precursor to intersubjectivity. That humans can help God know himself. In Hermetic philosophy humans act as a mirror for God. God does not understand his own nature, because he has no reference outside himself. So humans become that outside reference or mirror that God come to know himself. It must be said none of the Hermetic philosophers worked out the theory in detail. So let us turn to Schelling and Hegel. According to Schelling and Hegel each soul is a fragment of God, and God is complete in the multiplicity of human souls. God is not more than his parts. In other words, God is not transcendent, God is the parts. The external world is Leibniz's pre-ordained harmony. The easiest way to think of this is the analogy of a multiplayer computer game. The landscape of the game is generated from the program in each players computer, which in turn is in harmony with the program in all the other players computers. For Hegel this pre-ordained harmony become the Logic, which in turn is God. Schelling and Hegel both followed Kant in placing the terms or categories of the logic in human soul. To go back to our analogy the computer game must be up loaded into the computer of each player, so the players copy of the program becomes an innate category in the players character in the game. This program or logic is the Objective Notion of God in the philosophies of Schelling and Hegel. The only way humans can discover the terms of the logic id through mutual interaction, much like the player discovers the abilities of his character, and the landscape to the game by playing the game. This is how the fragmentary souls discover, not create as in Fichte, universals by comparing experiences with others. Therefore reason is a social phenomenon and not a private experience. Reason can only develop by mutual interaction. So much for the common idea that Idealists are solipsistic. Of course in Hegel and Schelling the fragmentary souls are part of a greater self. So this is how through the fragmentary parts or souls interacting that God gains self-knowledge. To finish this essay let us take a diversion to the world of art. Art is also a mirror in which we view ourselves as reflected in a mirror. I will use the aesthetic theory of A. K. Coomaraswamy, the Anglo-Indian philosopher and historian of art. For Coomaraswamy the function of art was to establish a communication between the artist and the observer. If we can reconstruct and understand the message of a work of art, we have achieved the aesthetic experience. Coomaraswamy asserts that there can be no progress in beauty. That a primitive mask or a pottery fragment are not inferior to a Renaissance masterpiece in a scale of beauty. In fact there is no scale of the aesthetic experience. This is not to say there is not a progress in technique, only that beauty is beauty once the communication is established. That the communication is all that is necessary. So what does Coomaraswamy's theory tell us about modern art versus ancient art? It art is a reflection of our inner life that we are trying to communicate what is the message of modern art? the most obvious difference between modern art and ancient art is the lack of detail, and ornamentation of modern art. My question is does this reflect the difference between the quantitative view of the world of the modern versus the qualitative view of ancients? I believe the answer is yes. That quantitative thinking has led to a bareness and sterility in the inner lives of modern humans. The modern prejudice is always to value function over form. One only has to look at the intricately detailed sculptures of traditional Indian art as compared to the best of Picasso. Not that Indian art is better or more beautiful than modern art, only that they reflect vastly different inner lives. Cubism and minimalism reflect the uniformity and sterility of our inner lives as compared to the rich inner lives of those that lived in more mythological times. The lack of detail and decoration represents the effects of standardization that quantitative thinking demands. Something to think about.