Philosophy is not based on statistics or knowledge, it's based on interpretations. How we interpret has everything to do with us and what kind of person we are, what kind of life we've lived and are living. What we're paying attention to and what answers we've come to in the past. — Judaka

Pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. One’s personal philosophy manifests as the summation of his experience in relation to his conscience. One cannot NOT have opinions, what you label as interpretations, which are merely the cognitive biases and prejudices of his intrinsic subjectivity, whether from the world’s affect on him empirically, or his affect on the world morally. Given this extant condition, and given its necessary employment every moment of conscious awareness, there is simply no need for superfluous introspection.

Fine. No problem. I shall have to trust your belief in the explanatory power of anthropology and empirical psychology. But seriously, I do understand how introspection as a mental exercise holds so much attraction.

lol, I haven't the slightest idea, despite rigorous ongoing introspection and other cognitive processes, where you post lies on the spectrum of partly agreeing to mocking the heck out of what I wrote.

you take great pride in the fact that you are an engineer, and not part of the unwashed masses. — removedmembershiprc

I too am an engineer. We are very much part of the "unwashed masses". We work for a living, and we make stuff. We are distinct only from those who make nothing, either supervising those who do, or living off family money.

Nahhhh....I got respect enough for your comments here to never mock them. I’m partly agreeing, insofar as I acknowledge your belief in introspection, but at the same time, I’m rejecting the very idea of it.

the very idea of it. — Mww

'it'?

The very idea of introspection? That one should believe in introspection as a source of knowledge? I love the idea that you are rejecting my belief in introspection, that you might know I don't have it, [laughing now] but I doubt that's what the ambigous 'it' represents.

It being the very idea of introspection. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Oh. If you've explained this somewhere above, could you say where. Otherwise, why do you reject it?

And then also: how do you know you do?

I explained my rejection of the very idea of introspection primarily because it is only rationality anyway, and secondary to that, it is redundant to understanding.

I know I reject it because I cognize something else as having greater logical justification, re: understanding. None of that tells me introspection is worthless in and of itself, but only that I am, as a stand-alone rational entity, no better off with it than without it.

The true value of introspection is knowing your role in the creation of "the world" as it is known by you. Beyond truth is perspective as how you are is reflected in how you see the world, to try to know the world without knowing yourself is to ignore your biases and position in it. It would be an absurd undertaking in my mind. If your mood is dark then the world is a miserable place, if you're in love then the world is singing, it can be that basic but it can also be incomprehensible in complexity once factors are taken into consideration alongside each other. — Judaka

This is the heart of introspection for me. It has formed my understanding of knowledge and reality. I have always thought that temperament, our built-in attitudes toward the world, has a lot to do with which approaches to philosophy we take. I tend to have a positive attitude, the world is a wonderful place. That colors everything I think. That's why I started this thread, because introspection is so important to me.

I think you should test your introspection. How many times do you get it wrong when considering how you introspect things to be or turn out which have a matter of fact answer? I think personally it's clear it isn't a valid source because of the amount of times my introspection doesn't work for me; I typically need to modify my first intuitions or introspections with reasoning — aporiap

Introspection is not the same thing as intuition. Introspection, as I've said, is just observation. I've spent a lot of attention observing my internal life. How can I be wrong about what I see? I can be wrong about what I do with those observations, but that's true of everything. Generally, I'd say introspection is at least as effective for me as other types of observation.

... Hence why philosophy should allow itself not to necessarily stay pigeonholed, and to access tools from both sides of the aisle as the case may be. To that end, in some ways your OP term "introspection" almost begged parsing those kinds of concerns viz Psychology. Or at least required one to spread the love at least partially in that direction. — 3017amen

You can't understanding epistemology without psychology. Introspection is the one process that allows us to observe psychology at the source.

The Psychology of Being — 3017amen

I'll take a look. Don't be shy about referring to books. I find them very useful. A few recommendations from others have really guided my understanding of philosophy, science, and psychology.

law of attraction — 3017amen

Ahem. That's all I have to say about the law of attraction. I would be interested to hear what you have seen when you look into yourself while experiencing it though.

Introspection is not the same thing as intuition. Introspection, as I've said, is just observation. I've spent a lot of attention observing my internal life. How can I be wrong about what I see? I can be wrong about what I do with those observations, but that's true of everything. Generally, I'd say introduction is more effective for me than other types of observation. — T Clark

You don't think we occasionally confabulate, thinking sometimes we know how we felt or why we did a certain thing when in actuality the real reason, if any, was different? I think it's very possible to misattribute emotions and misunderstand feelings, specifically when there are implicit attitudes or biases hidden because of whatever discomfort they cause to ackgnowledge. I think, as with any other sort of infering, like with external observation, it's possible to not be right even with introspection.

You don't think we occasionally confabulate, thinking sometimes we know how we felt or why we did a certain thing when in actuality the real reason, if any, was different? I think it's very possible to misattribute emotions and misunderstand feelings, specifically when there are implicit attitudes or biases hidden because of whatever discomfort they cause to ackgnowledge. I think, as with any other sort of infering, like with external observation, it's possible to not be right even with introspection. — aporiap

As I wrote, introspection is observation, not interpretation, not intuition. How do I know that?....Introspection. I observe my introspection. How? Using my introspection. No inferring, no explaining, no understanding, no attribution, no acknowledgment.

For a moment, just imagine what I'm talking about. From what you've written, it seems like you don't experience things this way. But people do. I do. We're not wrong. You're not wrong either, except when you say we're wrong. People are different. Why is that hard to understand?

I explained my rejection of the very idea of introspection primarily because it is only rationality anyway, and secondary to that, it is redundant to understanding. — Mww

So, you reject @Coben's, @Judaka's, and my experience of introspection. That's pretty arrogant and it shows a lack of imagination and empathy. If you can't imagine that other people experience things differently than you do, that says something about you, not about us. When time comes time to use, evaluate, draw conclusions from the information we gather, that's open season.

I never said, nor even hinted, that I reject your collective experiences of introspection.

But don’t worry....I won’t judge you for misunderstanding me.

I'm trying to rack my brain, who quoted this:" What you are not you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot communicate itself to you".

???

Can’t help ya. Sounds about right though.

I never said, nor even hinted, that I reject your collective experiences of introspection. — Mww

You wrote:

my rejection of the very idea of introspection — Mww

What did I misunderstand?

As I wrote, introspection is observation, not interpretation, not intuition. How do I know that?....Introspection. I observe my introspection. How? Using my introspection. No inferring, no explaining, no understanding, no attribution, no acknowledgment.

For a moment, just imagine what I'm talking about. From what you've written, it seems like you don't experience things this way. But people do. I do. We're not wrong. You're not wrong either, except when you say we're wrong. People are different. Why is that hard to understand? — T Clark

So observing or recognizing yourself as having or experiencing certain internal states, emotions, thoughts. That's introspection correct? I think the process of labeling feelings, 'recognizing' certain feelings is falliable. I didn't think about 'meta' introspection - introspecting introspections. It's true you can self correct that way but I think from implicit attitude research, there is good reason to think despite this, a large number of people may mistake what they think they believe or feel for what they actually feel or believe. It would take repeated 'introspective experiments' to see how you really feel or think about something.

Interpretations include cognitive biases and prejudices but that's not all they are but given you know what these things are, why would you pretend that people are in a constant state of awareness about them? Cognitive biases, particularly, by definition, are not something people are likely to be aware of. The nature and nurture influences on the self which moulds our interpretations aren't something people are automatically conscious of. You believe people exist in a level of self-awareness that I cannot agree with.

I think we can just agree to disagree on that, a debate on how self-aware the average person is would be difficult and unpleasant. A discussion on how introspection has helped me would just be anecdotal. All very anecdotal and I can't imagine either of us changing our minds.

I don’t like e.g., the Dallas Cowboys, but I wouldn’t disallow a friend from coming in my house because he’s wearing one of their t-shirts.

It would take repeated 'introspective experiments' to see how you really feel or think about something. — aporiap

Which many people carry out.
People can be fallible with reasoning also.
Some people are terrible at reading other poker players, some are good. We would consider the ability to read people a facility, even though some are bad at it.

But the analogy would be someting like thinking he doesn't know he is a fan of that team. If one does not believe in introspection, the odds would be just as good that it was some other team he actually liked, or any other team, or even did not like the sport.

I don’t like e.g., the Dallas Cowboys, but I wouldn’t disallow a friend from coming in my house because he’s wearing one of their t-shirts. — Mww

Do you deny the very idea of the Dallas Cowboys? If so, you are a truly dedicated fan.

So observing or recognizing yourself as having or experiencing certain internal states, emotions, thoughts. That's introspection correct? I think the process of labeling feelings, 'recognizing' certain feelings is falliable. — aporiap

If realizing means labeling, that's not what I'm talking about. As I said previously - No inferring, no explaining, no understanding, no attribution, no acknowledgment. Now we can add no labeling and, I suppose, no recognizing. An episode of the Simpsons comes to mind when they go to Australia.



In case you couldn't tell, you're the bartender.

Cognitive biases, particularly, by definition, are not something people are likely to be aware of. — Judaka

Generally speaking, they damn well should be. One’s interpretations, cognitive biases, prejudices form the spectrum of judgements he is going to make on a rather large range of possible situations presented to him at any given time. It is in his best interest to have some idea what those might be, don’t you think? How else is it even possible to make moral decisions, especially? Accident and reflex being the only exceptions to the rule.
—————

You believe people exist in a level of self-awareness that I cannot agree with. — Judaka

What level is that?

What....did I over-simplify?

You accused me of being arrogant in rejecting some collective experience, when all I’m rejecting is an idea.

(Sigh)

You'd be rejecting people's interpretation and reporting of their experiences, or?