So one can still entertain the notion that there is a genuine revelation at in this tradition, without being obliged to accept it on its terms. — Wayfarer

Sure, you can entertain the idea, or even believe that it is so. But if you believe, for example, that the Christian, or the Buddhist, revelation is a genuine revelation of the truth, then I can't see how you would not be "obliged to accept it on its own terms". This would seem to be some kind of prevarication, or at least, vacillation.

Your way of seeing this seems to involve a kind of cultural relativism. Where do you draw the line, for example? What religions are not genuine "responses to the Divine"? Or, on the other hand, is it the case that all religions are merely responses to the idea and feeling of the divine, and none of their claims can be consistently (plausibly) taken literally?

I think it always comes down to faith. If you are an aspiring Buddhist, you have faith in the possibility of liberation. You have faith that the masters who discipline you are themselves liberated, or at least enlightened, and so on. You have no way of knowing which masters are enlightened and which are phonies, other than your own feelings about it.

There can be no knowledge in the kind of sense that we have with everyday facts, science and mathematics. Even if you have epiphanic experiences you have no way of knowing exactly what they indicate about the nature of reality. This is true even of the Buddha and Christ; they could have no absolutely certainty that they were not deceiving themselves. If the Buddha believed that he remembered 5000 of his past lives, he could have no way of knowing that those memories were genuine, and that they were not on account of some psychic connection or an incredibly fertile imagination or whatever. Remember, even Christ said "Oh, Father why hast Thou forsaken me?"

Where do you draw the line, for example? — Janus

With what matters to you, what you think is really important. In my case, there are certainly elements of those philosophies I take seriously and literally and attempt to practice. Faith is an element, but faith is not 'fideism', faith alone, clinging to belief. IN fact that's something I've tried to resist all my life.

The world we live in now, all of such ideas and systems interact with each other and are freely available from many sources. There are so many ways, so many knowledge claims, conflicting ideas and opinions. On the one hand, it's an unprecedented opportunity for learning, on the other it can be very daunting, when it seems that all such claims contradict each other.

There is an Amazon review of one of Huston Smith's books, Forgotten Truths, that I sometimes quote in this context. It says that:

there are "levels of being" such that the more real is also the more valuable; these levels appear in both the "external" and the "internal" worlds, "higher" levels of reality without corresponding to "deeper" levels of reality within. On the very lowest level is the material/physical world, which depends for its existence on the higher levels. On the very highest/deepest level is the Infinite or Absolute.

Basically this volume is an attempt to recover this view of reality from materialism, scientism, and "postmodernism." It does not attempt to adjudicate among religions (or philosophies), it does not spell out any of the important differences between world faiths, and it is not intended to substitute a "new" religion for the specific faiths which already exist.

Nor should any such project be expected from a work that expressly focuses on what religions have in common. Far from showing that all religions are somehow "the same," Smith in fact shows that religions have a "common" core only at a sufficiently general level. What he shows, therefore, is not that there is really just one religion, but that the various religions of the world are actually agreeing _and_ disagreeing about something real, something about which there is an objective matter of fact, on the fundamentals of which most religions tend to concur while differing in numerous points of detail (including practice).

Of course any two religions therefore have much more in common than any single religion has with "materialism". In fact one way to state the "common core" of the world's religions is simply to say that they agree about the falsehood of "materialism."

That's about my assessment too.

There can be no knowledge in the kind of sense that we have with everyday facts, science and mathematics. — Janus

I haven't studied Plato's theory of knowledge in depth (although I do intend to), but I do know that a great deal of it concerns questioning what we think we know or take for granted about the world. Consider the distrust of the testimony of sense - that the sensory objects are not really valid objects of knowledge, due to their mutability and corruptibility. Whereas, if we regard the 'realm of everyday facts', as normative, we're essentially asserting naive realism - 'of course the empirical world is the real world'. Philosophy questions that, although I do agree it's not easy to do that.

But that kind of questioning used to be represented in science itself - that 'science reveals the real world' - the world of ultimately-existing entities and forces, atoms or leptons or quarks or whatever. But it's one of the attributes of post-modernity that even this understanding is how held to be perspectival and no longer absolute; it comprises falsifiable hypotheses, not statements of absolute truth. 'There are no absolutes' is practically a truism.

If the Buddha believed that he remembered 5000 of his past lives, he could have no way of knowing that those memories were genuine" — Janus

It's more that we have no way of assessing such a claim.

I agree that there are many elements in traditions that seem fantastic or mythological. But there is no absolute objective yardstick to measure such claims against. You're not going to validate or invalidate such claims against anything known to peer-reviewed science.

What he shows, therefore, is not that there is really just one religion, but that the various religions of the world are actually agreeing _and_ disagreeing about something real, something about which there is an objective matter of fact, on the fundamentals of which most religions tend to concur while differing in numerous points of detail (including practice).

I think the points of agreement between religions are mostly ethical, most notably versions of the Golden Rule and elaborations of that. Materialists can also be, without inconsistency, adherents of the Golkden Rule; in fact it is precisely what is required for mere social harmony. Disagreements abound between the abrahamic and non-abrahamic religions when it comes to conceptions of the absolute (supreme being), the afterlife and divine punishment. If there is an "objective matter of fact" then in these areas of disagreement all but one (if that) of the religions must be mistaken.

With what matters to you, what you think is really important. — Wayfarer

I agree, and this is a personal matter, essentially affectively driven; what matters to you equates with what you care about.

It's more that we have no way of assessing such a claim.

I agree that there are many elements in traditions that seem fantastic or mythological. But there is no absolute objective yardstick to measure such claims against. You're not going to validate or invalidate such claims against anything known to peer-reviewed science. — Wayfarer

Yes, and that's exactly what I have been saying; there is no way to validate such claims intersubjectively, because there is nothing intrinsic to them that can be observed, or checked in the way claims in mathematics or science can be. So, I don't think it's really a matter of "absolute yardsticks"; there would seem to be no such thing even in science.

The difference between the kind of 'knowledge' claimed to be associated with religious or mystical experience and everyday factual knowledge, scientific knowledge and mathematical knowledge, is that the latter can be built into a falsifiable body of intersubjective knowledge.

So, perhaps we have not been disagreeing as much as it has appeared, after all...

Just because it's something that can't be validated scientifically, doesn't mean it isn't real.

Just because it's something that can only be known in the first person, doesn't mean it's simply subjective.

Again, I agree; although the big question is what it means to say that it is real. We know what we mean when we say that a phenomenon of the senses is real, but it's not straightforward when reality claims are made about what we might think is indicated by religious, mystical, aesthetic or ethical feelings and experiences.

Obviously there are intersubjective commonalities when it comes to such experiences, but what exactly those commonalities tell us about the nature of reality is not so easy to determine; perhaps it is not even possible to do so. I can't think of any methodology, but I do leave it open, since it could be a failure of my own imagination.

Intuition yields a different kind of knowledge (knowledge by feeling, by familiarity) than rational, empirical knowledge. — Janus

OK...

I can agree, well... sort of agree.

My take on intuition is that it is a slang term for a quick reflex observation/analysis/conclusion that indeed is founded in some sort of reasoning and based upon some sort of small set of available information. This notion of intuition is indeed a sort of knowledge by feeling or by familiarity, but it is a very short sighted knowledge. Indeed it can prove to be correct, but quite often it proves to be misguided in that the conclusion is founded upon a very short list and selected set of evidence. Intuition is a potential starting point or catalyst for a much larger and detailed investigation, but if it is unfortunately confused with being an end in itself; thus thought of as being a sort of guiding force or and actual metaphysical reality.

Of course there are situations that do not require detailed analysis, as they might well be considered trivial aspects of everyday life, but even then some sort of reasonable, rational analysis is in play. Just because the analysis is very fast does not mean it wasn't in play. Also, just because it was quick and easy analysis doesn't mean it is different than slower and more difficult analysis.

I suppose what I'm saying is that intuition is simply a potential starting point of rational, empirical investigation and not something all together different. The problem is when one begins to believe that intuition is and end in itself and enough or somehow equal to a much more detailed analysis. Sure the first notion of intuition can be correct, but the list is really long of moments where intuition is dead wrong, but the initial intuition is held onto due to familiarity, feeling, preference or just pure stubbornness.

A former PF member once wrote this reply (somewhat less vitriolic than most of his posts):

"You are taking your sense of wonder, combining it with your inability to conceive of certain things, and demanding from everyone else that they remain as ignorant. That's not good."
― Kwalish Kid

I allow that to echo in my mind with nearly everything of which I begin to feel quite certain; thus I place my intuitions, as well as any detailed investigations into perspective.

I suppose I could say that intuition is a necessary thing as a starting point in the process of rational empirical investigation, but it is not prudent to allow it to be an end in itself considered to be a guiding force or a metaphysical reality. I wish not to confuse my thinking my evidence for something is that it is evident to me (my support for the conclusion is simply what I concluded).

Meow!

G

I just want to point out that I have not claimed that intuition is necessarily a good guide when it comes to empirical, scientific or even everyday knowledge. I think your definition and understanding of intuition is too narrowly focussed.

When it comes to matters that fall outside the everyday, empirical or scientific, apart from the fact that logical consistency and coherency are obviously also often important, personal feeling, intuition and experience become paramount. Think of love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion in this connection.

Contra the Kwalish Kid statement, I do not expect, or even think it is a good idea for, anyone to believe anything on the basis of anyone else's intuitions.

Woof!

Didn't Socrates inform that wisdom is knowing how stupid we are?

Maybe, but how could we know how stupid he was?

He was smart enough to kill himself!

So it follows that to be alive is to be stupid?

Absolutely... !

Infinite wisdom only attainable after death... all the big questions answered instantly... without any room for debate!

Are you still alive Janus?

Or not...

I think so...

I can't really agree with the conclusion, as with intuition that there is a potential (and probable) set of mistakes and false assumptions waiting to happen that lead to a further continuation of mistakes and false assumptions that intuition can subsequently deny that the mistakes and false assumptions are to it's credit by lack of reasoning as there no point in reasoning why intuition might have flaws. — Mayor of Simpleton

That may be the weakness of intuition. Consequently, the weakness in reason is that every step of the reasoning process has to be correct for the conclusion to be correct. Reason has the benefit of exhaustivity and finality when the steps can be reasonably shown to be correct (and how often does that happen? Just read a reasoned debate on this forum for the answer. Or just read a bunch of different philosophers who disagree with each other); intuition, on the other hand, has the benefit of knowing the conclusion without taking exhaustive steps that need to be perfect; Intuition has the potential to avoid the mistakes in reasoning which lead to badly reasoned conclusions. Hence, one is not better than the other.

Indeed intuition can mean what one cannot know by reasoning, but how is that any differenct than forcing an answer to a question prematurely (a hasty generalization) for the sake of having an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton

I think you missed the poetic license I used (sorry, was being intuitive for a sec...) I'll translate: "reason doesn't know what intuition means when it says something (Reason: "Hey intuition, what do you mean by that?"). But intuition means (poetic dictionary definition): "that which reason doesn't know". It was an example of something poetic expressing a truth in a way that reason can't.

OK... perhaps intution means this well with it's intentions, but is it really prudent to force an answer for the sake of having an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton

You misunderstand intuition if you think it means forcing an answer. That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of what I've been trying to express.

Is there (in your notion) some sort of (metaphysical) the truth that is intrinsic to the universe or our experience of the universe? — Mayor of Simpleton

My intuition says "yes"; my reason says "???"

btw... I do need to make clear that this is not a game or a competition. I view this as an exchange of ideas. There are no trophies or medals to win in such a dialog. If you do view this as a game or competition then let me know and I'll end this now. — Mayor of Simpleton

If it came across that way, then I was probably either agitated by feeling misunderstood, or slightly tipsy. Either one is very possible. Apologies.

... intuition, on the other hand, has the benefit of knowing the conclusion without taking exhaustive steps that need to be perfect; Intuition has the potential to avoid the mistakes in reasoning which lead to badly reasoned conclusions. — Noble Dust

One note before I comment...

I'm happy this is not viewed as a competition. I've encountered far too many folks who think this is sport; thus the flaming an trolling one encounters that is supposed to be "harmless chat". I'm less concerned about connection between my personal identity and my notions I discuss. My perspective is that this forum is a sort of sounding board and a peer review. Thanks!

Anyway...

I don't believe that reasoning has to be "perfect", but it needs to be less self-assuming; thus open to critical review. Also, I'm not all to sure what "exhaustive steps" intail, as one's exhaustion is perhaps another persons warm-up.

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?

You misunderstand intuition if you think it means forcing an answer. That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of what I've been trying to express. — Noble Dust

I'm not too sure if I'm really being all that uncharitable. Isn't the notion of intuition not the fielding of a decision? It seems to always go "my intuition tells me thus and such". That is a statement of something being evident and not an offering of evidence. One draws a conclusion... and without the aforementioned "exhaustive steps" prudent for the sake of clarity or accuracy and possible critical review of the steps, as the steps (investigations) are there... how exactly is intuition not a decision an one basically blurted out as a reflex; thus a decision fielded in the face of a question without much investigation?

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.

Is there (in your notion) some sort of (metaphysical) the truth that is intrinsic to the universe or our experience of the universe?
— Mayor of Simpleton

My intuition says "yes"; my reason says "???" — Noble Dust

I suppose it's fair if I answer this one too.

My intuition from much earlier said "yes", but my reason found a multitude of flaws and biases in my intuition and now concludes a nearly 100% certain "no".

Why "No"?

I've spent quite a deal of time and effort (perhaps exhaustive steps?) picking it apart and reviewing it in detail. Metaphysics has become a house of cards that looked to be a fortress, but I found a puff of wind or even a simply finger flick of reason/logic cused it to collapse and if left alone it would collapse upon it's own weight.

Here's a strange thing...

My review of metaphysics and the notion of intrinsic truths began with a notion of intuition that something about all this was wrong. I didn't stop at the intuition, but decided to look into it beyond what my first intuition indicated to me.

Anyway...

I still view intuition as being a potential starting point for reasoning, but in and of itself is very hasty short sighted probably extremely biases reasoning. Reasoning beyond intuition places itself under review. This is a luxury of intuition as it needs no review... it just claims to know... basta.

This is not an appeal to an authority, but rather a very good example of how I tick regarding intuition and such...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I'm frequently asked, "Do you believe there's extraterrestrial intelligence?"

I give the standard arguments- there are a lot of places out there, the molecules of life are everywhere, I use the word billions, and so on. Then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it.

Often, I'm asked next, "What do you really think?"

I say, "I just told you what I really think."

"Yes, but what's your gut feeling?"

But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.”

- Carl Sagan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Meow!

G

I just want to point out that I have not claimed that intuition is necessarily a good guide when it comes to empirical, scientific or even everyday knowledge. I think your definition and understanding of intuition is too narrowly focussed. — Janus

I wasn't directing the post at you personally. I'm only concerned with the ideas being presented and what I read. If I understood what I read is another issue.

When it comes to matters that fall outside the everyday, empirical or scientific, apart from the fact that logical consistency and coherency are obviously also often important, personal feeling, intuition and experience become paramount. Think of love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion in this connection. — Janus

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. It's really not all that difficult to prove with clear logic and evidence that one person loves another person or why certain factors found in an aesthetic experience appeals to one person but not to another. Philosophy and religion are all notions that can indeed be reviewed and understood by logic and evidence. Ethics (the study of morals) like politics, aesthetics, social norms/mores are all subsets of value theory an are more than not justified by logical appeals and attempts at reasonable/rational arguments/debates. I see not exclusive domain or difference in intuition and reasoning other than intuition is basically a hasty reflex based upon what evidence happens to be on the surface and reasoning simply looks for more factors and evidence; thus can take up greater foundation in fielding a decision.

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.

Meow!

G

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.

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

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.

Woof!

J — Janus

:rofl:

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.

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

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 — Noble 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 intuition — Noble 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

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.

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.

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.

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 here — Noble 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:



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

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