• TheMadFool
    2.2k
    What is wisdom?Noble Dust

    Wisdom moves from the past into the future. But the future is not like the past except in the mundane sense of things always falling to Earth (gravity). What I mean is wisdom gets outdated so fast that it becomes pointless to acquire it.
  • Janus
    5k
    I wasn't directing the post at you personally.Mayor of Simpleton

    You don't need to worry about me taking anything personally. In fact I cannot imagine how you could have read that into my responses.

    My only problem here is that everything you have mentioned (love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion) do indeed have a very logical consistancy and coherency if one chooses to look a bit closer.Mayor of Simpleton

    Yes, well my only problem is that you seem to think that the fact there might be appropriate logics in love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion has any bearing on what I have been arguing. Perhaps you could choose some of my actual statements and show how it would be relevant.

    Indeed intuition and experience (as if experience is in the sole domain of intuitive thought and plays no role in empirical or scientific review?) become paramount, but as I said before they are a beginning of reasoning and if left alone with no further progression as both the beginning and end in and of itself... well, as I said before... there are just far too many "stones unturned"; thus the truth of the certainty is founded upon a reluctance to review.Mayor of Simpleton

    This passage seems to be the closest you have come to making an actual argument. But again nothing in it contradicts anything I have said. Prior to the advent of an explicitly understood scientific method, intuition indeed reigned (you only have to look at Aristotle's physics or Chinese medicine). I have already acknowledged that intuition is not necessarily the best guide to how things actually are empirically speaking.

    Of course even such early disciplines have their own logics; it is just that elaborating on intuitive assumptions, instead of inductive conjecture and experimental verification or falsification, provides the principal activity of the rational intellect in those ancient domains. In the domains of religion and the arts, intuition still reigns. People's understanding of poems, paintings, music, mystical writings and religious allegories is still mostly an intuitive process.

    But, of course intuitive processes may be informed by rational thought, too. What do you think theology consists in, for example? There is plenty of logic in that discipline. Even in geometry and logic itself, what does self-evidence consist in if not intuition? How would you know that one thing is entailed by another if not be intuition?

    Woof!

    J
  • Noble Dust
    2.8k
    In any event, I still cannot help but believe that intuition alone is hasty.

    Bad reasoning is still a form of "exhaustive steps" in reasoning; thus the errors can be exposed and the reasoning refined. Without the "work" of these steps how is a lack of steps really better other than it having the ability to speed up a process, by skipping steps?
    Mayor of Simpleton

    I never tried to argue that intuition should be used "alone", or that it was better; I've already stressed that. Or, if something I said led you to believe that I think that about intuition, then I didn't word it right. The whole point I was making is that both intuition and reason are valuable. I'm making that argument because you don't seem to consider intuition valuable.

    I feel no need to be charitable here. I feel more a need to be accurate as to the nature of intuition no matter how brutal it might appear.Mayor of Simpleton

    I said your interpretation of intuition as "forcing an answer" was uncharitable, because it's inaccurate. Maybe uncharitable isn't the right word; it was just an inaccurate interpretation of what I mean by intuition; it seems like you haven't given much consideration to what I'm saying intuition is, and what it's function is within the larger scheme of thinking. Or maybe I just haven't given a good enough picture of what I think about that.

    Basically that's where I landed in my investigation and I'm still curious I what direction and where the next bits of info will lead me.Mayor of Simpleton

    I'm more interested in Charles Ives than Carl Sagan, so maybe that's where we have an issue here? Indeed, music, especially the music of someone like Ives, is pretty much the supreme fusion of reason and intuition.
  • Noble Dust
    2.8k
    Woof!

    J
    Janus

    :rofl:
  • Noble Dust
    2.8k
    Wisdom moves from the past into the future. But the future is not like the past except in the mundane sense of things always falling to Earth (gravity). What I mean is wisdom gets outdated so fast that it becomes pointless to acquire it.TheMadFool

    Can you make an argument for the idea that wisdom moves from the past into the future? To say that wisdom gets outdated fast is to basically say that wisdom doesn't exist, which is fine if you want to make that argument. Otherwise though, I can't see how that idea makes any sense; it's essentially a non sequitur.
  • Mayor of Simpleton
    392
    Yes, well my only problem is that you seem to think that the fact there might be appropriate logics in love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion has any bearing on what I have been arguing. Perhaps you could choose some of my actual statements and show how it would be relevant.Janus

    To do so I'd need really specific statement and not generalized notions.

    In addition, I'd need to know a large martix of factors ranging from past individual experiences, current individual knowledge, and factors of individual preference. The example needs to be specific, as the experiences, current knowledge and factors of preference will vary from individual to individual.

    Once I have the information it is really not all that difficult to understand why someone has a preference to a certain type of art or falls in love with a specific individual; thus present a clear logic as to why such actiona and events play out as they have played out.

    Indeed such a process of analysis is difficult, but it is indeed possible. The reason why such things are attributed to "magic" or "fate" or "chance/luck" has to do more with the complication involved in acquiring the information, access to the information, analysis of the information leading to an understanding... in short... it's simply easier to say "luck" than investigate into the various factors anvectors involved in an action or and event playing out as it has, but this "making it easier" does not take away the factors and vectors involved in the action and event playing out as it has played out nor does it grant credence to any "magic" or "fate" or "chance/luck". Perhaps the only thing proven by attributing actions and events to "magic" or "fate" or "chance/luck" is how little we care to actually understand what has occurred and simply wish to move forward; thus attributing actions and events "magic" or "fate" or "chance/luck" builds up institutions and a possible idolatry to willful ignorance, as these attribution do nothing whatsoever to explain an action or and event, but simply dodge the critical thought necessary to understand.

    I've left quite a bit out here, as this could mull on and on and on. My reason is I'm not too sure just how far I should go with this one before I feel I'm beating a dead horse.

    Prior to the advent of an explicitly understood scientific method, intuition indeed reigned (you only have to look at Aristotle's physics or Chinese medicine)Janus

    Well... at the risk of pissing off some folks (probably not you) various Chinese medicine (something very difficult to pin down) has been empirically tested. Much of it has been proven to be nothing more than "theatrical placebos", as in the case of acupuncture...

    (take your pick: https://www.google.at/search?ei=mkf5WsS-G8OWkwWf3Ij4DA&q=acupuncture+theatrical+placebos&oq=acupuncture+theatrical+placebos&gs_l=psy-ab.12...19040.26310.0.28084.12.12.0.0.0.0.112.872.9j2.11.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.NmLtThIvtYo )

    ... and other aspect indeed do show therapeutic value.

    The question remains was this something illustraing the triumph of intuitive processes or simply a bit of "accidental discovery via trial and error"? History is simply littered from mankind's intuition getting it dead wrong.

    Of course there can be bad science that emerges from poor applications of empirical processes. Phrenology and Homeopathy immediately come into mind.

    One of the differences between intuition and empirical sciences is that empirical sciences will debunk and refute claims whereas intuition only changes when the individual who's voiced and intuitive claim changes their mind. Intuitions are personal observations/conclusions in one breath. When challenged this is more than likely viewed as a personal challenge attacking the individual and not just the idea. Perhaps a very important aspect of science is that it really doesn't care what an individual thinks or desires or prefers. If the science does care about what an individual think or desires or prefers it really doesn take long before the corrective process debunks the claim and it lands on a pile of pseudosciences only to be applied by the stubborn.

    In the domains of religion and the arts, intuition still reigns. People's understanding of poems, paintings, music, mystical writings and religious allegories is still mostly an intuitive process.Janus

    I now this is going to get me into trouble, but I can't help but believe this reign of intuition is simply a way of justification of claims one knows little about, but insists upon speaking of with absolute certainty. In religion it's basically evident in the claims of answering with certainty the currently unknown with the absolute unknowable, then having the feeling of accomplishing an answering the unknown, but actually all that happened was a calculated dodging the issue. Religion applies intuition in the same way a good magician use misdirection to make it seems that a rabbit popped out of a hat or a someone was sawed into two halves.

    My experience of art might seems intuitive, but it is actually a complex matrix of factors and vectors that lead to me interpreting what I'm viewing. There is no experience of art that I can experience without taking the baggage of my past experiences and preferences.

    What do you think theology consists in, for example? There is plenty of logic in that discipline.Janus

    I have the perfect video for this one. I find it more or less captures my thoughts well and is a bit funnier than I can ever be.



    How would you know that one thing is entailed by another if not be intuition?Janus

    I believe this question is misleading.

    Perhaps intuition is the beginning toward knowing, but in and of itself it's not knowing. Knowledge comes via critical thought and knowledge is continually refines as this process of critical thought continues. Hasty assumption is achieved via intuition alone. I try not to confuse the first couple steps of a marathon with the entire race. ;)

    Meow!

    G
  • Mayor of Simpleton
    392
    I never tried to argue that intuition should be used "alone", or that it was better; I've already stressed that. Or, if something I said led you to believe that I think that about intuition, then I didn't word it right. The whole point I was making is that both intuition and reason are valuable. I'm making that argument because you don't seem to consider intuition valuableNoble Dust

    Fine...

    My point here is that intuition without continual critical investigation can lead to far more errors (thus of less value when alone); thus intuition is only a beginning and not an end.

    Reasoning without intuition is not as plagued by this error prone short-sightedness found in intuition alone. Sure it might not seem so inspired or magical, but I'm more concerned with outcomes than appearance.

    I said your interpretation of intuition as "forcing an answer" was uncharitable, because it's inaccurate. Maybe uncharitable isn't the right word; it was just an inaccurate interpretation of what I mean by intuition; it seems like you haven't given much consideration to what I'm saying intuition is, and what it's function is within the larger scheme of thinking. Or maybe I just haven't given a good enough picture of what I think about that.Noble Dust

    This is all fine and good, but how exactly is intuition not a conclusion?

    Also, since it is intuition and not a process of critical reasoning, how is this not a conclusion founded upon a very small sample size of information; thus a hasty (aka forced) answer?

    I'm more interested in Charles Ives than Carl Sagan, so maybe that's where we have an issue here? Indeed, music, especially the music of someone like Ives, is pretty much the supreme fusion of reason and intuitionNoble Dust

    Honestly I'd say nearly all music is a fusion of intuition and reason, but no music is the result of intuition alone, but there is music that is the result of reason alone.

    Meow!

    G
  • TheMadFool
    2.2k
    Can you make an argument for the idea that wisdom moves from the past into the future? To say that wisdom gets outdated fast is to basically say that wisdom doesn't exist, which is fine if you want to make that argument. Otherwise though, I can't see how that idea makes any sense; it's essentially a non sequitur.Noble Dust

    Wisdom is basically knowledge. Knowledge has a shelf-life I believe. History is evidence for that right? Flat earth - round earth is a good example.
  • Noble Dust
    2.8k
    thus intuition is only a beginning and not an end.Mayor of Simpleton

    I'm getting a little frustrated here. Nowhere did I say intuition was an end. You seem to read into my argument a lot. So do you consider reasoning a beginning, an end, or what?

    Sure it might not seem so inspired or magical, but I'm more concerned with outcomes than appearance.Mayor of Simpleton

    Again, "inspired or magical" is a pretty uncharitable response here, simply based on the tone. Do you really think that that's why I'm placing importance on intuition? Do you think that's why @Janus is making an argument in regards to intuition? You seem to have a charicature in your mind, probably based on those days in which you placed importance on intuition, of what people who place value on intuition are like. And furthermore, a feeling of "inspiration" (not sure what "magical" means) is natural when the intuition is used. I openly take that feeling for what it is and listen to it; I don't disparage it.

    This is all fine and good, but how exactly is intuition not a conclusion?Mayor of Simpleton

    Ugh...again, where did I say intuition is a conclusion? What does that even mean? It doesn't even make grammatical sense.

    Also, since it is intuition and not a process of critical reasoning, how is this not a conclusion founded upon a very small sample size of information; thus a hasty (aka forced) answer?Mayor of Simpleton

    Intuition deals with the immanently personal; sample size isn't important. You're using the rules of the game of reason to try to eliminate intuition (which doesn't play by reason's rules in the first place), from whatever game it is you're playing here. Essentially, intuition can never have a place in that game if the rules of intuition aren't allowed into the ring. If intuition has to play by reason's rules, then intuition is indeed worthless, which is basically what you're trying to set up here. But again, that's an uncharitable charicature of what intuition is, and it reveals your own lack of intuition.
  • Janus
    5k


    You're only addressing the role of intuition vis a vis empirical matters, so since I already more or less agree, I can't find much to respond to.
  • Mayor of Simpleton
    392
    I'm getting a little frustrated here. Nowhere did I say intuition was an end. You seem to read into my argument a lot. So do you consider reasoning a beginning, an end, or what?Noble Dust

    No you didn't say intuition was an end... I did.

    If intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired, would not intuition simply be a non-supported assumption of how things are without bothering to continue an investigation?

    One's intuition tells one "this is evident to me that..." and subsequently moves on building upon that notion with further intuitions and suddenly applied reasoning.

    I consider reasoning a process. Indeed we can know things to, but only to the best possible evidence or support we can have at the time. What is known can change and refine via this process. The problem with intuition is it does not have the process of reasoning involved in it's decision making; thus often falls short or stagnates in stubbornness.

    Again, "inspired or magical" is a pretty uncharitable response here, simply based on the tone.Noble Dust

    Sorry for the selection of terms, but honestly if the term require charity to hold up then is it really worth as much as one might believe it to be?

    To be honest I believe that far too much charity has been granted to intuition and perhaps it's overdue for a reality check.

    Do you really think that that's why I'm placing importance on intuition?Noble Dust

    Honestly I have really no idea why you'd place more importance or even equal important upon intuition.

    Do you think that's why Janus is making an argument in regards to intuition?Noble Dust

    I think we've sort of cleared that up, as I will only consider this vis a vis empirical matters. I'll answer that to Janus in my reply to his/her post.

    You seem to have a charicature in your mind, probably based on those days in which you placed importance on intuition, of what people who place value on intuition are like. And furthermore, a feeling of "inspiration" (not sure what "magical" means) is natural when the intuition is used. I openly take that feeling for what it is and listen to it; I don't disparage it.Noble Dust

    Not really... I'm simply placing the two concepts intution and reasoning acrossed from one another and looking at the pros and cons.

    I'm not interested in the private or social placebos that make one "feel better", but rather I'm looking at the two concepts to determine which of them is the better process to gaining knowledge that is less biases and information that is less narrow of a perspective. So far reasoning is far in the lead.

    Ugh...again, where did I say intuition is a conclusion? What does that even mean? It doesn't even make grammatical sense.Noble Dust

    Again... I said it was a conclusion, as illustrated by it's definition.

    Intuition deals with the immanently personal; sample size isn't important. You're using the rules of the game of reason to try to eliminate intuition (which doesn't play by reason's rules in the first place), from whatever game it is you're playing hereNoble Dust

    This seems a bit silly now, as the alternative would be to use my intution about what intuition means; thus why are we bothering having a debate and attempting to reason out what intuition means?

    Why not simply call it whatever one chooses to call it and move on? Why the post and the relies?

    Essentially, intuition can never have a place in that game if the rules of intuition aren't allowed into the ring.Noble Dust

    Intution has rules?

    I thought the point of intuition was to simply call it as one sees it according to what one sees.

    Are the rules of intuition "anything goes"?

    If intuition has to play by reason's rules, then intuition is indeed worthless, which is basically what you're trying to set up here. But again, that's an uncharitable charicature of what intuition is, and it reveals your own lack of intuition.Noble Dust

    So you did get my point.

    Intuition alone or without subsequent reasoning is indeed not worthless, but is only of worth to the one who fielded the intuitive notion.

    - Accupuncture works!
    - The earth is flat!
    - The sun revolves around the earth!
    - Air is breathable as long as I don't see smoke!
    - My rally hat caused the team to come back and win!
    - The Comulians are the one true gods as the literally control the weather I see (Rick and Morty)!

    OK... that might have been uncharitable.

    I suppose if there is any evidence to support intuition it would be anecdotal evidence, but my take on this type of debate regarding intuition/ancedotal evidence vs. reasoning/empirical evidence is reflected in this cartoon:

    20110218.gif

    Let's avoid that.

    No matter...

    I'm going to be out of your hair for awhile. A trip to Paris for a week with no internet. Just art, food and my wife. I suppose I'll have an unfortunate (good) time applying my reason in experiencing the art. ;)

    Meow!

    G
  • Mayor of Simpleton
    392
    You're only addressing the role of intuition vis a vis empirical matters, so since I already more or less agree, I can't find much to respond to.Janus

    Indeed.

    I'm not really that interested in a long laundry list of the personal examples of intuition being a "great thing" (evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony... aka anecdotal evidence), as this simply become pleading special cases leading to errors of sample size.

    At the risk of a tautology, intution is simply intuition... a potential beginning process for a more accurate and clearer investigation via empirical reasoning or it becomes a stubborn stopping point for those who wish to have an investigation/answer in one breath; thus ending investigation or the continuation of a carefully protected investigation in a hermetically sealed worldview allowing nothing more than believing in believing and faith in faith supported by anecdotal evidence.

    Indeed anecdotal evidence does have a value, but only when in combination with empirical methods/evidences. I view intuition in the same manner... it only has a value when combined to checked by empirical methods. When alone intuition is the breeding ground for superstitious thinking and dangerous pseudosciences with no checks in place to control the danger.

    My take on this whole muddle is that intuition has had a protected status and has been quite romanticized and overestimated for the sake of granting credence to knowledge assumed to be true knowledge that has no foundation. Oddly enough the ones granting the credence to intuition tend to be the same ones who field the notions of knowledge assumed to be true knowledge that has no foundation.

    Strange thought now... I can't get this moment out of my head... I wonder why?



    Anyway... I'm off to go to Paris... Pompidou, d'Orsay, Sacré-Cœur... ;)

    Meow! (Miaou!)

    G
  • Janus
    5k


    OK, well, you're entitled to your views, of course. For me though, they come across as tendentious; I agree with @Noble Dust that your account of intuition is a superficial 'simpletonistic' caricature. Happy trails!
  • Noble Dust
    2.8k
    Wisdom is basically knowledge.TheMadFool

    That seems a very unwise position.
  • TheMadFool
    2.2k
    That seems a very unwise position.Noble Dust

    I read somewhere that wisdom = good knowledge. ''Good'' is an adjective'' but ''knowledge'' is a noun. Said otherwise we first have to find knowledge and then determine if it's good or not.
  • bloodninja
    220
    I see what you're trying to express. But I think it is totally misguided.

    Try replacing 'knowledge' with 'understanding', and 'good' with 'true'.
  • ExTiNcT SaNitY
    1
    I used to think I was wise; I was the sunday-school devotee; the youth pastor took to me the most because I was passive and hungry to learn. I seemed to have a certain existential knack at an early age. A lot has happened since then. Now I don't know what wisdom is.

    I'm just relaying this little personal story so Michael doesn't delete the thread for "low post quality". In reality, all I want to ask is: "What is wisdom?"
    Noble Dust
    Never understood this sub basic questions that are easily read in a dictionary. If there's a complex aspect that one doesn't understand and wants to discuss it, then sure it's a good thing to post, but not this.

    If it was a big serious business, one would probably be fired not being able to perform a normal mail correspondence.
  • TheMadFool
    2.2k
    I see what you're trying to express. But I think it is totally misguided.

    Try replacing 'knowledge' with 'understanding', and 'good' with 'true'.
    bloodninja

    Well, I think change is the only unchanging truth. If there's wisdom worth holding onto then that's it.

    Doesn't that mean wisdom needs to update itself with time?
17891011Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.