Intersubjective Agreement Is Important To Which Philosophy

Contemporary intersubjectivity is an important theme in both the analytical and continental traditions of philosophy. Intersubjectivity is considered to be decisive not only at the relational level, but also at the episterotic and even metaphysical level. For example, intersubjectivity is postulated by playing a role in the truth of sentences and representing so-called objectivity of objects. It is important that man can understand the situation only „from within,“ but not from outside observer positions. For this reason, it cannot be interpreted as „objective“ or „subjective“ (Zotov 2010). In our example, a snowfall does not cause emotions in a motorist if he does not want to go out; In the case of a housing and municipal service employee while on leave; a child when he is sick and his parents do not allow him to go outside. In the conditions mentioned above (no need for car, vacation, illness), all the people mentioned are external observers. Ontology of corporate culture. Intersubjective theory includes a limited number of actors who must be unified by a common culture, often referred to as corporatist, otherwise mutual understanding is extremely difficult (if not impossible), even if the indeterminacy of the situation is extremely small and is very low in local mutual understanding without recourse to global structures (for example. B , normative and legal legislation). In this case, semantic intersubjectivity implies a common representation and consent of the actors with regard to the mission of the company, its values priorities and its rules of corporate behaviour.

All this set of concepts and appropriate relationships between them can be expressed by the ontology of corporate culture, which allows partners to dialogue „in the same language“ and understand each other fairly quickly. On the basis of this definition and assuming that the intersubjective system is a community, we come to the fact that the actors agree and must recognize the agreements reached in terms of common interests, but do not forget their own interests, that is, they must have some mutual understanding of the difference between a public sphere (group) and a private sphere (individual). There are a multitude of sources of indetermination in situations: natural, technological, etc., but the main source is the heterogeneity of the actors, the differences between their positions of world view. This is why communication actions aimed at mutual convictions, the search for compromise and the convergence of points of view play a key role in the processes of mutual understanding and consensus among the actors, which end up providing a tell-tale of the situation that falls to an acceptable level.