You don't know something just because you intuit that something is on your brain

[Gottservant]

You don't understand intuition, or contrast.

 

[KENIK]

"You don't know something just because you intuit that something is on your brain."

I find this OP curious.

Is this an epistemological assertion that knowledge is only derived through the senses?

Is there only "natural" intuitions?

How can one know that one cannot be gifted with divine intuitions, i.e. spiritual intuitions or immediate knowledge from God into the human mind?

 

[madaz]

I find this OP curious.

Welcome to CF, welcome to Gotts world.

 

[madaz]

I would rather you spoke in a more direct manner; I don't know how difficult it is for other people to understand you, but I have the extra handicap of being autistic. Subtly is really hard for me to interpret and understand, and most of it slips by as if it doesn't exist.

Despite your handicap you still seem to have a better grasp of what Gotts is trying to convey than I do. I suffer from Dyslexia, so I easily misunderstand direct speaking people like yourself at times, so I'm just utterly lost when ol mate Gotts talks in riddles.

 

[variant]

You don't understand intuition, or contrast.

It is probably impossible for anyone to understand your nonsense "standards" other than you Gotts, you don't define your terms properly, make countless logical errors, and can't seem to consistently apply your ideas.

So, what we are left with is nonsense.

I've tried to work though them with you rationally to show you your errors but you seem to have no interest in that, so good luck with that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Despite your handicap you still seem to have a better grasp of what Gotts is trying to convey than I do. I suffer from Dyslexia, so I easily misunderstand direct speaking people like yourself at times, so I'm just utterly lost when ol mate Gotts talks in riddles.

I make educated guesses. And I word sentences oddly myself, though not in the same way he does

 

[KENIK]

Welcome to CF, welcome to Gotts world.

Thank you madaz. Gotts welt is very interesting . . .

 

[KENIK]

Gottservant Posted (Post#1):

. . . The problem is that as far as I can tell, these people (let's just amalgamate them for a second yes?) believe that they "know" something on the basis of what they intuit their mind is capable of believing, but doesn't actually (believe). In other words, they "believe" from a position of ignorance, because they haven't actually made the transition from knowledge to understanding that knowledge requires to be more than dead.

If you intuit something, and accept that it is a form of knowledge, I would suggest that it is not a matter of believing the intuition, per se, it is a matter of confirming it and entering it into a further discursus of meaning with the rest of human experience as it is understood, what you are calling understanding. This posits the possibility of existential growth and development, something that is seen in everyone. It is a shared human experience.

Ignorance is beside the point. No human has a full discursus of reality so, given that it is incomplete, belief does enter into the human situation, what is called existential condition, the lacking of the possibility of an all-encompassing understanding of reality (such that God would have), and the existence of living it as a human fragment of that reality. One can either accept or reject the situation of that ignorance or embrace hope or despair. If hope is affirmed than existential faith must become possible.

When I was at uni I encountered this problem and I actually invented a term to highlight that there is more to know "norscomni" from the latin for know and everything, because when you know in principle, for even a moment, you have for a moment known everything.

I disagree. Knowing a principle is not knowing everything.

The point of this, is to stretch beyond what you merely intuit in relation to what you believe. The reason I came up with this word - which basically means "know that you know, without referring to yourself" - is that what you know is actually a hard problem, but also a minimum for discussing anything meaningfully.

But isn't referring to yourself the main point? Isn't the known what the knower knows? And if we do not have a full discursus of knowledge, doesn't this mean that we know what we know as a fragment of reality, and this must condition the basis of an existential faith?

. . . It seems there is more at work than simply persuading people that knowledge is more or less reasonable, more or less practical or impractical. Philosophy has its limits, I think we all know that, but what do you do when you discuss something that has even greater limits and yet no one even does the basic homework of making sure they are not just intuiting something that exists only in their imagination?

I would agree. This would be a justifiable complaint. There is existential faith, and, also, existential bad faith.

. . . you might want to discuss from personal experience in relation to the limitations you've placed on yourself, or what your sense of the power of intuition is, in relation to knowlege. From my experience, intuition never discerns more than you have a conscience to persist at, so for example if you believe time continues forever you will always be able to intuit something useful as long as you give more time. What's concerning I think, is the idea that this is ultimately just for selfish reasons . . .

This passage is confused. If intuition is a form of knowing, it is highly personal to begin with and is not related to knowledge but must be confirmed in respect to knowledge already apprehended and entered into one's discursus.

It would seem that conscience would be irrelevant to an intuition because the intuition comes of its own working. The conscience may dictate how one acts upon the intuition.

The existential self is a matter of insight in respect to qua reality, a fragment that stands in contrast to a greater reality. It is personal and does not need to be morally understood or confused as selfish.