Venn Diagramming This Mess

[bhsmte]

So much the worse for them. It's not like being in the wrong is anything advantageous.

On the contrary, being wrong about something is not the main issue for some, it is being able to believe in something or hold onto a belief at all costs that dominates the psyche.

 

[Received]

Ok, but this would mean that your entire "intuition"- approach (which seems to be your foremost interest as of lately, and which actually was the keyterm at the beginning) is left behind.

In a nominal but not necessarily phenomenal way, yeah.

What is it you´d like me to expand on? Do you have a specific question concerning this paragraph?

Just more of what you said, maybe a rephrase. It's interesting but I'm not quite getting it all.

What is the opposite of using intuition in a totally nilly willy way, and how do I determine which way I use it? What are the criteria for a non-nilly-willy-use of intuition?

By "willy nilly" I meant, basically, people who are lying to themselves by *saying* they believe one thin (via intuition), but really believe another.

In fact, more often than not I first know "intuitively" that there´s something wrong with an argument, and then it takes some cognitive effort to spot and explain the fallacy. If "my intuition says..." would be a sufficient response to at least you (since that´s what you feel we should rely upon anyway - rather than reason and logic) that would completely change and, first of all, shorten our conversations dramatically.

What I'm essentially getting from this is that there is a difference between private experience or validation of something as true and the ability to communicate how this private experience (intuitively validated) is true via reason. Intuition -- grasping that something is true or not -- is a private, immediate thing, whereas reason is a "public" (intersubjetive), non-immediate thing. Pretty neat stuff if you ask me.

 

[Received]

Ding!

 

[PsychoSarah]

So much the worse for them. It's not like being in the wrong is anything advantageous.

Sure it does, the placebo effect demonstrates pretty well how just thinking something is true (that you took a medication that will provide treatment) can have an impact.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll give this a shot, and I'll probably change my mind in half an hour (see attachment). Brief explanation:

• Science is the smallest sphere, but provides probably the most certainty with what we can know about things.
• Outside that is reason, which can work with conclusions from science, but also from experiences and intuitions (a priori truth).
• Outside that is experience, which stands for what it basically says (a posteriori truth).
• Outside that is intuition, which to me is the same as axiomatic or self-evident truths. What Bertrand Russell called "instinctive beliefs".

Received,

I would place intuition in a separate ontological category from the other three. The reason being is that intuition can be singular in its manifestation, whereas as the other three 'entities' are more prone to being 'communal' in their existence as phenomena reflecting some kind of 'realia.' Reason and Science particular need community interaction and confirmation to be recognized as what they are; for instance, Einstein wasn't reasonable about the theory of Relativity just because he put it all together. His theory had to be confirmed by other individuals before being accepted. Intuition doesn't have to have this kind of ontological state to be what it is; I can intuit what I will, and it won't really matter to me whether you agree with ideas I intuit.

Peace

 

[Received]

Received,

I would place intuition in a separate ontological category from the other three. The reason being is that intuition can be singular in its manifestation, whereas as the other three 'entities' are more prone to being 'communal' in their existence as phenomena reflecting some kind of 'realia.' Reason and Science particular need community interaction and confirmation to be recognized as what they are; for instance, Einstein wasn't reasonable about the theory of Relativity just because he put it all together. His theory had to be confirmed by other individuals before being accepted. Intuition doesn't have to have this kind of ontological state to be what it is; I can intuit what I will, and it won't really matter to me whether you agree with ideas I intuit.

Peace

I was trying to get to the idea that intuition could be independent on its own by having it as the outermost sphere, with space between it and the one below it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was trying to get to the idea that intuition could be independent on its own by having it as the outermost sphere, with space between it and the one below it.

Received,

Ok, then. You've already thought about this, I see. I guess we need something more/other than a Venn Diagram to show the 'space' of which you speak.

Good thoughts on your part, though. Thank you. Interesting perspective.

Peace