I'm not exactly an expert/an authority here señor. Maybe the beliefs I have given my stamp of approval are just a stage in the life of a philosopher. I'm deeply saddened that I have to abandon objectivity as a dangerous idea and I sincerely hope that in the coming few years I'll be led back to it and will appreciate its true value for humanity. Fingers crossed!

The question of objectivity is a difficult one because human life is comprised of different subjectivities. Even intersubjective aspects of thought may be based on consensus assumptions and may be limited. In a way, it may be difficult to know of objective truth ultimately because it is not possible to step outside of one's subjectivity, which is bound up with sentience. Much of what is seen as objective may be based on shared understanding as opposed to soliptist thinking.

The question of objectivity is a difficult one because human life is comprised of different subjectivities. — Jack Cummins

Objectivity does not negate or even threaten / undermine "subjectivies"; it simply refers to an epistemic status, so to speak, what I refer to as subject(ivity)-invariant (as well as pov / language / gauge —invariant), or a truth-value which does not vary with "different subjectivies" – truth-values which are the same for all "subjectivities". As I pointed out to Agent Smith

e.g. A = A;
you were not born before your parents;
there are more real numbers than integers; etc... — 180 Proof

are truths which are the same for every "subjectivity" (though, almost certainly, they mean different things to different subjects). I don't see what makes "the question of objectivity ... difficult."

Subjectivity has been, for obvious reasons, always associated with our senses (look up illusions in Wikipedia). Objectivity, on the other hand, has always been about the mind, reason/logic/critical thinking to be precise.

However, the mind, as they say, can/does play tricks on itself (fallacies, cognitive biases).

Philosophy is, as you would've already noticed, is a struggle against, sensu amplo, subjectivity. The idea behind it is simple - facts, not opinions. How do we tell 'em apart? Rationality and Observation. The former is a general methodology and applies across the board, the latter is the lifeblood of science, sensu lato.

The above is simply how it's supposed to be and how it actually is is an altogether different story. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz believed that all disputes could be resolved via logical calculation (he was a diplomat too). He initiated a project to develop a language for this purpose but could never complete it (it was ambitious and probably beyond the paradigms of his time).

Coming to intersubjectivity, to my reckoning it refers to beliefs that aren't objective i.e. aren't justified but still are shared by a group of people. In other words opinions, opinions to be understood in the broadest sense possible, not facts, that some people subscribe to/endorse are what intersubjectivity is all about. In short an intersubjective belief is one that has spread (think memes) in the population but it lacks any justification, kinda like a rumor.

'The certainty-seeking mindset has a way of causing those trapped in it to miss out on their lives: it renders them allergic to the present, where uncertainty reigns.' — Jack Cummins

One thought on that. In very complicated situations you have to rely on intuition. Often people want to make it seem like their decisions are based on analsysis, scientitific research, deduction...when in fact we must, often, rely on intuition. My claim does not mean we shouldn't analyze, etc., but the truth is we have processes in our minds for dealing with complexity. Some are better at this then others, and we have different abilities in different areas of life. But intuition is often involved and it has to be. People in philosophy forums will often reverse engineer their conclusions. They have a conclusion, they they justify it after the fact. But in reality we use intuition and can get better at it. And this is not wrong.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you, as I have been busy dealing with the practical uncertainties in life. I am not exaggerating, I found out yesterday that all the people in the house where I am living will have to find alternative accommodation by the middle of next month. So, I am a bit shaken up by this unexpected news.

The reason why I am mentioning it because it does tie in with your own one on intuition. When thrown into difficult situations, while reasoning is important, intuition is likely to play a large role, especially in decision making. Often, in difficult choices and, finding a viable way forward, I have found intuition to be extremely valuable.

While critical thinking relies on logical analysis, intuition seems to sometimes almost contain another kind of way of seeing, which almost cuts through some of conundrums of logic. Of course, it doesn't mean that all intuitions are going to be all knowing, but, there againn, neither are all rational arguments reliable, especially as there are often contradictory ones. It may not that learning the art of intuition, which may be about gut responses, is one which can be learned as a form of spontaneous thinking, in the face of that which is uncertain.

Perhaps, intersubjectivity is based on underlying consensus, like the group mind. Even though in the post above, I have just argued for a importance of intuition, rationality is the clearest foundation for thinking. However, while the intersubjective ideas may be the stepping stones it may be that individual thinkers' originality and creativity are central to the way in the understanding of underlying thinking moves forward, or evolves.

I have no idea as to why the concept of intersubjectivity was invented, but it might be so as to refine the notion of objectivity as more than just consensus among members of a group.

Subjectivity: Beliefs unjustified; No consensus.
Objectivity: Beliefs justified; Yes/no consensus.
Intersubjectivity: Beliefs unjustified; Yes consensus.

:up: and good luck with the living situation.

For objectivity, 'whether or not there is consensus' is N/A.

For objectivity, 'whether or not there is consensus' is N/A. — 180 Proof

I thought objectivity doesn't tolerate dissent! We all havta agree (consensus) or else it's the loony bin!

"Objectivity" is not an intentional agent, so "does not tolerate dissent" is an incoherent assumption on your part.