• Suicide is wrong, no matter the circumstances

    It's forbidden in judaism.

    אך את דמכם. אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁהִתַּרְתִּי לָכֶם נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה בַּבְּהֵמָה, אֶת דִּמְכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵהַשּׁוֹפֵךְ דַּם עַצְמוֹ:
    ואך את דמכם HOWEVER YOUR BLOOD — Although I have permitted you to take the life of cattle yet your blood I will surely require from him amongst you who sheds his own blood (see Bava Kamma 91b). Link

    Google Bava Kamma 91b
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

    --Abraham Maslow
  • The Complaint Thread
    "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". And if your hammer is conceptual clarification, you are doing analytic philosophy.
  • Randian Philosophy
    Is it a vicious circle or is it a merry-go-round? :DOscarTheGrouch
    I was just working with the information you gave me in the OP. I am not an expert philosopher who can give you professional advice. I thought it could be useful to order these sentences in that way. Perhaps you don't think it's useful, that's fine.

    Is there a chance you can expound a bit on this?

    A few questions I can think of immediately:

    Is this derived from Randian theory or elsewhere?
    Does happiness first occur through experimentation and then your values are instantiated in order to reinforce behavior that lead to happiness?
    OscarTheGrouch
    It's a lot of work to answer these questions. I wish I could help you.
  • Intuition
    The problem with social science definitions is that they use what is called an operational definition. As far as I am aware, philosophy doesn't use operational definitions.

    The picture of intuition I have already presented is the one to be found in some Plato (perhaps the Meno and Theaetetus). According to the SEP, is also the median position to be found in modern philosophy as
    S has the intuition that p if and only if S is disposed to believe p
    magritte
    Okay. I guess we all need to keep in touch with more up-to-date contemporary philosophy.
  • Randian Philosophy
    Happiness is one’s ability to freely pursue his values.
    values are generated based on promoting one’s wealthOscarTheGrouch
    Wealth is one’s means to happiness.
    Happiness is one’s ability to freely pursue his values.
    Back to square one. The problem lies in those descriptions of happiness, values, and wealth, respectively.


    The problem emerges from my description of values, wealth and happiness. Man values things that bring him wealth, wealth brings him happiness because it allows him to more freely pursue his values?OscarTheGrouch
    Happiness leads to values. Values lead to wealth. Wealth leads to happiness. Happiness leads to values. Thus we have a vicious circle.

    Edit: I'm pretty sure I got the ordering wrong. But at least you get the idea.
  • Intuition
    It seems the sort of thing we all know and understand, but I find when I look more closely, I don't. I know something about odds and "gut feelings" and experience. These all fuzzy. But does it resolve into something definite under the right focus, or is it fuzzy all the way down?tim wood
    Exactly. It all seems uncertain to me.
  • Intuition
    So what exactly is intuition? It is the ability to know something without analytic reasoning, bridging the gap between the conscious and non-conscious parts of our mind."tim wood
    I don't believe there is an exact definition of "intuition". Dictionaries provide definitions, however, we don't use dictionaries in philosophy.
  • Intuition
    There is a bug in your reply.magritte
    I'll reply again. :smile:

    Intuition is a subjective personal source for suggesting possible beliefs which is far from being a source of any kind of knowledge. Intuitions are deeply psychological, exactly the sort of thing rational philosophy should be distancing itself from.magritte
    I wouldn't say "any kind of knowledge". I believe that we all have personal knowledge that is not shared with the public.

    Intuitions are guesses but not raw guesses. For example, mathematical or artistic intuition starts with loading one's mind with everything already known on some narrow topic. Then subconsciously, which means without rational deliberation, testing many combinations of possibilities, even while sleeping, which pop into the conscious mind suddenly with a best fit guess to a problem. The result can remembered and further developed rationally.magritte
    Intuitions are not guesses, guesses are guesses. Saying intuitions are guesses would make intuitions interchangeable with guesses. Thus we could stop talking about intuitions and start talking about guessing. I personally do now know exactly what intuition is. It's one of those fuzzy words/concepts.

    I take it that you agree with me (and Plato) that the assessment of any sort of knowledge based on psychological intuition has to be dead wrong?magritte
    I wouldn't say "dead wrong". I would agree that intuitions are not a contribution to public knowledge.

    2. We can readily rely on this faculty to obtain knowledge.Wheatley
    Objection to 2: Science often makes discoveries that are counter-intuitive. In fact, history shows us that scientific breakthroughs are made by challenging traditional assumptions and intuitions.Wheatley
    This is not wrong, it's just nonsense. As I already pointed out, intuitions are private psychological hunches based on what each of us has already learned.magritte
    It is nonsense if we assume your definition of intuition.
    Public scientific discoveries are almost always counterintuitive, otherwise they would have been known to the ancients' intuitions.
    Public scientific discoveries always go against our best guesses and hunches, otherwise, the ancients would have known our science.

    Science is counterintuitive because the world that scientific instruments measure is different from our inborn naive intuitions of what the world we imagine ought to be. The fault is with our subjective psychological intuitions and not with objective scientific instruments. The scientific world is totally hidden from the naive conceptions of un-instrumented primitives like us.
    I wouldn't say that the scientific world is totally hidden from our view, The scientific world is right there in front of us. Science only offers us a better and more accurate understanding of the natural world. It is true that science gathers data that were previously inaccessible to ordinary people, but that doesn't imply that science replaces what humans ordinarily believe. Science only adds to public knowledge, it doesn't take anything away from us ordinary people.
  • Intuition
    Thanks for addressing this topic.Nickolasgaspar
    Np.
  • Intuition
    Intuitions are deeply psychological, exactly the sort of thing rational philosophy should be distancing itself from.magritte
    :party:
  • Intuition

    I have nothing to say about the content of your post because (like you said) it is based on anecdotal evidence.

    I didn't agree with your conclusion. So I responded to that.

    You also made the jump from talking about facts in your second paragraph to talking about knowledge in your third paragraph. I don't believe knowledge consists of facts. A physicist professor can be very knowledgeable about physics, but that knowledge is not merely a collection of facts. Their knowledge may include a deep understanding of the physical world, mathematics, and a background of related things.
  • Intuition
    This is the last time I'm using Britannica. :angry:
  • Intuition
    There are other senses of intuition than Kant’s. All I’m saying is that the link can be interpreted as conflicting with one of its referentsMww
    :up:
  • Intuition
    That an old system such as Kant’s has never been proven wrong doesn’t make it correct, just continuously useful, if only against which new systems are judged.Mww
    It doesn't seem right to use Kant's system as standard to judge other systems merely on the bases that Kant's system hasn't been disproved. The fact that Kant has never been refuted is just a testament to how hard it is to refute a philosophical position. That being said, I have no reason to accept Kant's philosophy, nor his ideas about intuition.
  • Intuition
    : That science makes breakthrough challenging extant intuitions, is sufficient presupposition for them,Mww
    How so? If anything, science has introduced doubts about our intuitive ability. Presupposing them then would be counter-productive.

    That which is counter-intuitive doesn’t negate the power of intuition itself, but at most merely some content of it.Mww
    I agree.
  • Intuition
    People look down on intuition, but it is much more powerful and effective than what we call knowledge. Our intuition is the fundamental basis of our intellect. To not recognize its importance is mind-bogglingly arrogant.T Clark
    Then I must be "mind-mindbogglingly arrogant". If I had to choose between a book that contains knowledge and a book that contains somebody's intuitions, I would choose the former. Simply put: it's better to know.
  • Is Social Media bad for your Mental Health?
    Is any media good for your health?
  • It is Immoral to be Boring
    It is Immoral to be Boring

    Damn straight!
  • Double Slit Experiment.
    Physicist Sean Carroll explains observers in QM.
  • What is Being?
    Another snippet from Kahn:Wayfarer
    We're not in ancient Greece. :yawn:
  • What is Being?
    What is Being?

    (Let's keep things simple. :smile: )

    A noun. Nothing more, and nothing less. It's not even an intelligible concept. An artifact of the English language: "To be, or not to be."

    Talk about human-beings and animal-beings, living, or persisting, are a whole new ballgame.

    (-ing! :chin: ) Do rocks be? or do rocks exist? Are rocks being? or are rocks existing?
  • Who are the 1%?
    I'd like to gather some perspectives on the issue of wealth inequality in this country. There's always much talk about the 1%, and I wonder if anyone has read or researched extensively who exactly these people are and if there are trends in their philosophies or religious outlooks.

    I think it's often forgotten that behind major corporations there are real people making the major decisions, with real thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and values. Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they ar
    Xtrix
    It has everything to do with inequality: 99 % vs 1%. It's a natural human reaction to feel stressed to see privileged snobs who inherit billions of dollars (or assets/wealth) get all the societal benefits (such excellent schooling and healthcare) based on capitalism which prioritizes money above all else. The rest of us have to struggle hard to pay for basic things: healthcare, college, rent, etc..
  • Who are the 1%?
    How Economic Inequality Inflicts Real Biological Harm. Scientific American

    Yikes! I forgot that @Xtrix don't like me spamming links. :snicker:
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    The government is taking our money!
    A1H5WKyQK0L._SL1500_.jpg
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    A stagflation swamp: Joe Biden is Jimmy Carter 2.0

    Keynesian economics dominated economic theory and policy after World War II until the 1970s, when many advanced economies suffered both inflation and slow growth, a condition dubbed “stagflation.” Keynesian theory’s popularity waned then because it had no appropriate policy response for stagflation. (IMF)

    17 Nobel Prize–winning economists back Biden’s $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan

    I would bet money that most of those laureates are Neo-Keynesians. :nerd:
  • Messiness
    Then you must not have studied the classics. Was it Plato who complained about the incompetence of his fellow students? The budding philosophers at the Academy were at each other's throat at times, so I was told.Caldwell
    Interesting. I guess there are different ways to go about philosophy. :ok:
  • Intuition
    We have evidence in OP that well respected philosophers have historically utilized intuition. And then you have David Chalmers (prominent philosopher) disagreeing with Herman Capellen (from Oxford) who denies how central intuition is to philosophy.

    What a mess!
  • Intuition
    Philosophy without Intuitions
    Herman Cappelen
    ABSTRACT
    The claim that contemporary analytic philosophers rely extensively on intuitions as evidence is almost universally accepted in current meta-philosophical debates and it figures prominently in our self-understanding as analytic philosophers. No matter what area you happen to work in and what views you happen to hold in those areas, you are likely to think that philosophizing requires constructing cases and making intuitive judgments about those cases. This assumption also underlines the entire experimental philosophy movement: Only if philosophers rely on intuitions as evidence are data about non-philosophers’ intuitions of any interest to us. Our alleged reliance on the intuitive makes many philosophers who don’t work on meta-philosophy concerned about their own discipline: they are unsure what intuitions are and whether they can carry the evidential weight we allegedly assign to them. The goal of this book is to argue that this concern is unwarranted since the claim is false: it is not true that philosophers rely extensively (or even a little bit) on intuitions as evidence. At worst, analytic philosophers are guilty of engaging in somewhat irresponsible use of ‘intuition’-vocabulary. While this irresponsibility has had little effect on first order philosophy, it has fundamentally misled meta-philosophers: It has encouraged meta-philosophical pseudo-problems and misleading pictures of what philosophy is
    . (link)
  • Intuition
    In Philosophy Without Intuitions, Herman Cappelen focuses on the metaphilosophical thesis he calls Centrality: contemporary analytic philosophers rely on intuitions as evidence for philosophical theories. Using linguistic and textual analysis, he argues that Centrality is false. He also suggests that because most philosophers accept Centrality, they have mistaken beliefs about their own methods.To put my own views on the table: I do not have a large theoretical stake in the status of intuitions, but unreflectively I find it fairly obvious that many philosophers, including myself, appeal to intuitions. (link)

    Intuitions in Philosophy: A Minimal Defense
  • Intuition
    Cognitive biases are a well-established fact. The vast majority of people reason fallaciously in a wide variety of circumstances.Pantagruel
    I know about the cognitive biases.

    Intuition has formed the basis of my professional career in troubleshooting computer systems. For a self-trained engineer, I have enjoyed considerable success. I feel it has guided my studies equally well. I've heard it described as "immerse yourself in your subject matter....and wait." I'd say that's accurate.Pantagruel
    That's similar to what I said.
    From my understanding, intuitions are developed from experience and practice. Doctors, for example, gain intuitions about medicine by treating patients. My question is, is it necessary to postulate intuition as a mental faculty that allows us to obtain metaphysical knowledge? We all have intuitions in our everyday lives, that is certain. But to go ahead postulating an intuitive mental faculty is surely unwarranted.Wheatley
  • Does human nature refute philosophical pessimism?
    I never bought into philosophical pessimism. IMO, there's nothing philosophical about being pessimistic.
  • Intuition
    Yes, ,much of everyday human reasoning is fraught with technical difficulties (viz. cognitive biases). So there is some faculty which counterbalances sensory reasoning.Pantagruel
    Is that a psychological fact, or speculation?
    I personally have always enjoyed a highly-developed intuitive sense.Pantagruel
    And have you acquired any knowledge with your "highly-developed intuitive sense"? Perhaps you can give me an example.
  • Intuition
    How does on go about substantiating such a claim?Wheatley
    It's no mystery to me that there is such a thing.Pantagruel
    We definitely have intuitions, I agree. However, the OP is concerned about intuition as a mental faculty.

    From my understanding, intuitions are developed from experience and practice. Doctors, for example, gain intuitions about medicine by treating patients. My question is, is it necessary to postulate intuition as a mental faculty that allows us to obtain metaphysical knowledge? We all have intuitions in our everyday lives, that is certain. But to go ahead postulating an intuitive mental faculty is surely unwarranted.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    So, Trump against somebody in 2024ssu
    More likely he'll die from a heart attack because of his fast food diet.
  • When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
    I don't see anything wrong with conspiracy theories per se, as long they're aren't aimed at innocent people. Politicians are fair game. Heck, some might even be true.