I am reading Nietzsche's work, as the few pieces that I have seen on this forum have most definitely intrigued me. And so I have some questions for you Philosophers and Ponderers, that have arose in my mind since I have started reading his work, as I am sure it has in others' over the years.
Should Intuition be used as a sole guide of living in this world? Or should Reason and Logic be the sole guide?
Perhaps Intuition should be the primary, and Reason the way to tame our natural intuition, so that it becomes a workable guide in our everyday world? Or Vise-Versa?
Is there really anybody who has completely given up their Intuition, and been able to survive in this modern world?
Is there really anybody who has completely given up their Reason, and been able to survive in this modern world?
Should either be considered useless?
We use reason in philosophy, Science, Math... in so many things... But what of intuition? Is intuition ever really wrong? Or could it only be wrong in the circumstances that we allow our flawed Reason and Logic to intervene? I am not saying all reason or logic is flawed; only that which is biased; tainted by the Ego, by our own personal desires as to what 'Seems' to be logical or Reasonable.
Often Intuition is our primary guide, especially when we must act in the split-second; when our Reason and logic do not have the opportunity to react.
That 'tickle' in the back of your brain, the voice in the back of your mind; your subconscious voice, that voice which is all to easily drowned out be so many different things. Our animal instinct; which left unchecked can wreak havoc on our selves, is often a reliable guide; but when does it become unreliable? When our Ego denies that voice, saying that it is wrong; when our Reason and logic take over, and shut out that small voice? Or when it is allowed to completely take over, so that we completely ignore REason and Logic?
Has our Intuition been suppressed, because We live in a physical world of Reason and Logic?
It seems to me That these things are almost of a nature of Duality; Intuition seems to guide the non physical; that subconscious 'voice' that reacts to the non-physical, where Logic and reason seem to guide us in the physical world. And all too often our logic and reason deny us the non-physical enjoyment, and Intuition the physical enjoyment.. But wait... even these are often intertwined... but yet always remain separate of themselves.
Reason Vs. Intuition
56 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
by Glen on October 2nd, 2007, 9:58 am
Hi, Craven,
It would seem that, in some situations anyway, logic and reason are tools of the ego. For instance, in the case of alcoholism or drug abuse, your intuition will tell you to not indulge, which is wise. Logic and reason, on the other hand, will make the case -- and with ungodly speed I might add -- that you're only on this Earth for a short time and you're going to die anyway and therefore it makes no sense at all to deprive yourself of a pleasure. And if that doesn't do it, it will further argue that if the indulgence knocks ten or twenty years off your life, you're going to be dead for eternity anyway and that clinging to the idea that there is great value in the final ten or twenty years is simply illogical, and therefore unreasonable; now go to town and get that bottle!
What the ego ignores, and will not apply logic and reason to, is the fact that you wake up in the morning feeling like you're eighty when you're barely thirty. Sometimes, logic and reason can be used by the ego as an information-filter when it is in pursuit of that which it values. Logic and reason can make life better, but in the wrong hands, it can kill.
What if I used logic and reason to determine the source of the wind? Let's say there's a wind coming from the west and I'm facing west. One hundred yards in front of me is a line of trees. Suddenly I see that the trees are begining to move, waving back and forth. Next thing I know, the breeze hits my face. Logic dictates that the trees are fanning the air with their movement. Even if someone challenges that theory by asking me to explain how it is that I feel the wind on my face in the winter time when there are no leaves on the trees, I could say that the trees down south still have their leaves and that there are no leaves on our trees to block the wind they're making. I could also be holding a gunny sack wrong side up and logically conclude that some bastard not only ripped the bottom out of it, but they went and sewed the top shut, too. Sorry. Mind wandering.
In the end, however, it seems to me that logic and reason don't have to be at odds with intuition. Maybe they could lead each other when applicable.
It would seem that, in some situations anyway, logic and reason are tools of the ego. For instance, in the case of alcoholism or drug abuse, your intuition will tell you to not indulge, which is wise. Logic and reason, on the other hand, will make the case -- and with ungodly speed I might add -- that you're only on this Earth for a short time and you're going to die anyway and therefore it makes no sense at all to deprive yourself of a pleasure. And if that doesn't do it, it will further argue that if the indulgence knocks ten or twenty years off your life, you're going to be dead for eternity anyway and that clinging to the idea that there is great value in the final ten or twenty years is simply illogical, and therefore unreasonable; now go to town and get that bottle!
What the ego ignores, and will not apply logic and reason to, is the fact that you wake up in the morning feeling like you're eighty when you're barely thirty. Sometimes, logic and reason can be used by the ego as an information-filter when it is in pursuit of that which it values. Logic and reason can make life better, but in the wrong hands, it can kill.
What if I used logic and reason to determine the source of the wind? Let's say there's a wind coming from the west and I'm facing west. One hundred yards in front of me is a line of trees. Suddenly I see that the trees are begining to move, waving back and forth. Next thing I know, the breeze hits my face. Logic dictates that the trees are fanning the air with their movement. Even if someone challenges that theory by asking me to explain how it is that I feel the wind on my face in the winter time when there are no leaves on the trees, I could say that the trees down south still have their leaves and that there are no leaves on our trees to block the wind they're making. I could also be holding a gunny sack wrong side up and logically conclude that some bastard not only ripped the bottom out of it, but they went and sewed the top shut, too. Sorry. Mind wandering.
In the end, however, it seems to me that logic and reason don't have to be at odds with intuition. Maybe they could lead each other when applicable.
- Glen
- Banned User
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 16 Jul 2007
- Location: A backstreet.
|
|
|
|
by Craven on October 2nd, 2007, 2:41 pm
So you do not deny that Intuition is something which should not be completely suppressed, and Reason is not something which should be completely suppressed?
But what of those who deny intuitions usefulness? Do those very same people use Intuition in their daily lives, despite this claim?
Does virtually everybody use intuition? And to what degree should we allow Intuition to rule our lives, over logic?
I have personally been using intuition and Logic in almost equal parts; Intuition as my primary guide, and Logic as the link to the real world, so that Intuition can be used in a proper way.
Intuition does not usually tell a person who knows nothing about The effects of Alchahol, that it would in fact shave off years if it was to be consumed in large amounts; Reason and logic prevail in this instance, but only if a person was to 'know' of its ill effects.
So does logic and Reason follow the path of Knowledge? Left-Brain thinking? and is intuition its counterpart, the Right-Brain guide?
Perhaps the Ego itself does not use either; perhaps Intuition and Reason are merely 'guided' by the Ego; our own personal desires, and the laws of reality that we live in. But intuition does not in itself allow the Ego to influence it; it is as it is. Intuition is trumped by the Ego quite often, but this does not mean that our intuition ever really changes; The Ego just re-writes over our intuitions original answer, with an egotistical desire as to what it 'Wants' the answer to be, or what it logically 'thinks' the answer might be, according to either A.) Reality, or B.) Desire.
Intuition can tell a person things that Reason and logic can only grasp at in vain.
For example, when a person is lying to you, but there is no real reason (In your mind anyway) for this person to lie to you, often your Intuition begins to take effect, telling you that something just doesn't seem right about this person. But logically and Reasonably, you should think otherwise. You later find out that your intuition was correct, and you scold yourself later for not listening to that little voice.
But what of the circumstances where it 'seems' Intuition is speaking, when it is merely the voice of our Ego saying its part, but so quietly it seems like our intuition, because even IT is unsure.
But what of those who deny intuitions usefulness? Do those very same people use Intuition in their daily lives, despite this claim?
Does virtually everybody use intuition? And to what degree should we allow Intuition to rule our lives, over logic?
I have personally been using intuition and Logic in almost equal parts; Intuition as my primary guide, and Logic as the link to the real world, so that Intuition can be used in a proper way.
Intuition does not usually tell a person who knows nothing about The effects of Alchahol, that it would in fact shave off years if it was to be consumed in large amounts; Reason and logic prevail in this instance, but only if a person was to 'know' of its ill effects.
So does logic and Reason follow the path of Knowledge? Left-Brain thinking? and is intuition its counterpart, the Right-Brain guide?
Perhaps the Ego itself does not use either; perhaps Intuition and Reason are merely 'guided' by the Ego; our own personal desires, and the laws of reality that we live in. But intuition does not in itself allow the Ego to influence it; it is as it is. Intuition is trumped by the Ego quite often, but this does not mean that our intuition ever really changes; The Ego just re-writes over our intuitions original answer, with an egotistical desire as to what it 'Wants' the answer to be, or what it logically 'thinks' the answer might be, according to either A.) Reality, or B.) Desire.
Intuition can tell a person things that Reason and logic can only grasp at in vain.
For example, when a person is lying to you, but there is no real reason (In your mind anyway) for this person to lie to you, often your Intuition begins to take effect, telling you that something just doesn't seem right about this person. But logically and Reasonably, you should think otherwise. You later find out that your intuition was correct, and you scold yourself later for not listening to that little voice.
But what of the circumstances where it 'seems' Intuition is speaking, when it is merely the voice of our Ego saying its part, but so quietly it seems like our intuition, because even IT is unsure.
-
Craven - Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: 28 May 2007
|
|
|
|
by Glen on October 2nd, 2007, 7:11 pm
Craven,
When it comes to the question of knowing when someone is lying to us, how would we know whether we're using intuition or picking up on subtle neurolinguistics? For instance, when president Bush speaks, he looks down ever so slightly every time he tells a lie. So does Condaleza Rice. In fact, very few people are capable of avoiding that give-away. My point is that you may just be subconsciously picking up on those subtle cues. It works much like subliminal messages -- like, drink Pepsi -- that they used to put onto one of the frames of theater films; consciously, you see nothing, but subconsciously, you pick up on it and find yourself wanting a Pepsi.
While what I just said is true, I believe that even without seeing the person telling the lie, you could intuitively pick up on it, feeling that something just doesn't feel right. There are examples of intuitive knowledge that go beyond rational explanation. It would be good to develop that kind of thing, because as with every other ability, if you don't use it, you lose it. It should never be suppressed. It's not valued much in society; in fact, it's ridiculed. I'm pressed for time right now. I would have like to talk more on this. Maybe later.
When it comes to the question of knowing when someone is lying to us, how would we know whether we're using intuition or picking up on subtle neurolinguistics? For instance, when president Bush speaks, he looks down ever so slightly every time he tells a lie. So does Condaleza Rice. In fact, very few people are capable of avoiding that give-away. My point is that you may just be subconsciously picking up on those subtle cues. It works much like subliminal messages -- like, drink Pepsi -- that they used to put onto one of the frames of theater films; consciously, you see nothing, but subconsciously, you pick up on it and find yourself wanting a Pepsi.
While what I just said is true, I believe that even without seeing the person telling the lie, you could intuitively pick up on it, feeling that something just doesn't feel right. There are examples of intuitive knowledge that go beyond rational explanation. It would be good to develop that kind of thing, because as with every other ability, if you don't use it, you lose it. It should never be suppressed. It's not valued much in society; in fact, it's ridiculed. I'm pressed for time right now. I would have like to talk more on this. Maybe later.
- Glen
- Banned User
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 16 Jul 2007
- Location: A backstreet.
|
|
|
|
by SmallMind on October 2nd, 2007, 7:43 pm
As a personal recollection, intuition was probably what was relied on for guidance while experiencing what might be called a mild episode of paranoia. Fortunately, an alternative strategy was elected, which turns out to be what is called due diligence. This meant that no conclusion would be arrived at that could not be supported by facts known to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. This turns out to be what is known as the scientific method.
- SmallMind
- Member
- Posts: 876
- Joined: 19 May 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SmallMind on October 3rd, 2007, 12:14 am
Glen, experience was what informed me of all of the plausible possibilities. Intuition was experienced as an inclination to select one for which I had no evidentiary support. Restraint turned out to be the prudent course of action because vibes from the universe, or wherever that inclination came from, turned out to be flat out wrong.
- SmallMind
- Member
- Posts: 876
- Joined: 19 May 2007
|
|
|
|
by Craven on October 3rd, 2007, 3:34 am
First, I would like to mention something very relevant about intuition.
It cannot be forced, unlike Reason; the more one attempts to 'Force' Intuition, the further one is removed from possessing it.
When I refer to Intuition, Smallmind, I am also referring to those things we call 'Hunches', or any variant thereof. Now, the difference between 'Intuition' and Paranoia, is that Paranoia plays on a persons fears; Paranoia is, in fact, a persons irrational fear of something or someone; Eg. "Your not hearing footsteps behind you, you're just paranoid", "The world isn't going to end tomorrow, you're just paranoid", "They aren't really out to get you, you're just paranoid." Etc.
-------------------------------------
"I don't know how I know, I just do..."
Why is it so hard for scientists to study 'Intuition', using scientific fact? Because, as I have previously mentioned, the more one tries to grasp at it, the harder it comes, which makes its study in a controlled environment out of the question, as so many "unexplainable" things are. You must let Intuition come to you, not you to it, where Reason tends to be something that one must be able to grasp with an iron fist, lest it slip through your fingers, turning into fancy and Egotistical desire.
Intuition, I believe, may be part of the Right-Brain function, much like Art and music. Art and music cannot usually be forced either, in fact, it seems much of the right brain function cannot be 'Forced', where the left brain seems to be the opposite.
The most difficult part of listening to Intuition, is knowing whether or not it is your Ego and/or Reason speaking, or your Intuition.
But Intuition often has this 'Nagging' Feeling when ignored; never too loud, never too quiet, but always nagging you in the back of your mind. Irrational Fear seems to have a different feel to it; its like a Fear, or Paranoia as you mentioned, smallmind, but its like a feeling in your gut or chest, rather than on the edge of your consciousness. Fear and paranoia have more of a 'gnawing' feeling, for lack of a better word.
But Intuition doesn't have the same feeling to it, its like its there, but not really there, as if its just at the edge of your mind...
Come to think of it, It almost has the same feeling as inspiration.....
It cannot be forced, unlike Reason; the more one attempts to 'Force' Intuition, the further one is removed from possessing it.
When I refer to Intuition, Smallmind, I am also referring to those things we call 'Hunches', or any variant thereof. Now, the difference between 'Intuition' and Paranoia, is that Paranoia plays on a persons fears; Paranoia is, in fact, a persons irrational fear of something or someone; Eg. "Your not hearing footsteps behind you, you're just paranoid", "The world isn't going to end tomorrow, you're just paranoid", "They aren't really out to get you, you're just paranoid." Etc.
-------------------------------------
"I don't know how I know, I just do..."
Why is it so hard for scientists to study 'Intuition', using scientific fact? Because, as I have previously mentioned, the more one tries to grasp at it, the harder it comes, which makes its study in a controlled environment out of the question, as so many "unexplainable" things are. You must let Intuition come to you, not you to it, where Reason tends to be something that one must be able to grasp with an iron fist, lest it slip through your fingers, turning into fancy and Egotistical desire.
Intuition, I believe, may be part of the Right-Brain function, much like Art and music. Art and music cannot usually be forced either, in fact, it seems much of the right brain function cannot be 'Forced', where the left brain seems to be the opposite.
The most difficult part of listening to Intuition, is knowing whether or not it is your Ego and/or Reason speaking, or your Intuition.
But Intuition often has this 'Nagging' Feeling when ignored; never too loud, never too quiet, but always nagging you in the back of your mind. Irrational Fear seems to have a different feel to it; its like a Fear, or Paranoia as you mentioned, smallmind, but its like a feeling in your gut or chest, rather than on the edge of your consciousness. Fear and paranoia have more of a 'gnawing' feeling, for lack of a better word.
But Intuition doesn't have the same feeling to it, its like its there, but not really there, as if its just at the edge of your mind...
Come to think of it, It almost has the same feeling as inspiration.....
-
Craven - Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: 28 May 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uanda on October 3rd, 2007, 9:01 am
What about a triad or the holy trinity? Reason and logic and intuition. The father, the son and the holy ghost. I think intuition is not a 'nagging' voice, but a sound-advice voice. Of course you can override it, ignore it, put it in the back drawer. It won't nag and nag and nag. It doesn't need to. Deep inside we know, ignore at your own peril. Consequence will follow. Intuition is on our side. Its not out to get me. Its an anti-accident warning. A speeding ticket. Which flaunted, can lead to a million volts.
I mean, all this fear of the 'ego' nonsense. Golly gosh. The world isn't out to get us; you are not out to get yourself. Me thinks a little 'nurture' might have an impact. Many monkeys were tortured to see what being raised by a fuzzy glove did. Reason and logic are tools for growth. Intuition (a basic instinct) is here as a survival mechanism.
I mean, all this fear of the 'ego' nonsense. Golly gosh. The world isn't out to get us; you are not out to get yourself. Me thinks a little 'nurture' might have an impact. Many monkeys were tortured to see what being raised by a fuzzy glove did. Reason and logic are tools for growth. Intuition (a basic instinct) is here as a survival mechanism.
-
Uanda - Forum Neophyte
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 03 Oct 2007
- Location: Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Glen on October 3rd, 2007, 10:09 am
Smallmind,
Sorry to hear about the state of your intuition. :-)
Yeah, I wouldn't want a jury of my peers to rely on intuition in their deliberations either. Thank god most people have the sense to apply particular aspects of their conscious awareness to particular situations and in appropriate ways. I sill have but a little faith in humankind.
Sorry to hear about the state of your intuition. :-)
Yeah, I wouldn't want a jury of my peers to rely on intuition in their deliberations either. Thank god most people have the sense to apply particular aspects of their conscious awareness to particular situations and in appropriate ways. I sill have but a little faith in humankind.
- Glen
- Banned User
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 16 Jul 2007
- Location: A backstreet.
|
|
|
|
by SmallMind on October 3rd, 2007, 10:48 am
Glen, just about anything anyone does who is gainfully employed is applying the scientific method, in my opinion. Intuitively I know that, given all the alternatives, that is the better way to go in dealing with the real world.
- SmallMind
- Member
- Posts: 876
- Joined: 19 May 2007
|
|
|
|
by Glen on October 3rd, 2007, 11:01 am
Smallmind,
The better way of dealing with the real world would be to not deal with it as much as cooperate with it. Scienticic method is fine and well, but when applied to farming, the method involves insecticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers. I wouldn't have a problem with that except that those elements become part of my food, which in turn becomes part of my body, and we all know the outcome of that situation.
If your intuition is telling you that the scientific method is the better way to go in all aspects of life, then let me just say, I honor your path.
The better way of dealing with the real world would be to not deal with it as much as cooperate with it. Scienticic method is fine and well, but when applied to farming, the method involves insecticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers. I wouldn't have a problem with that except that those elements become part of my food, which in turn becomes part of my body, and we all know the outcome of that situation.
If your intuition is telling you that the scientific method is the better way to go in all aspects of life, then let me just say, I honor your path.
- Glen
- Banned User
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 16 Jul 2007
- Location: A backstreet.
|
|
|
|
by Craven on October 3rd, 2007, 2:20 pm
I believe you are missing my points and questions, Smallmind and Uanda, so I will re-post them for your convenience.
Many do not believe Intuition really exists at all, and many believe that it does, but that it is nothing more than a remenant of our animal selves, that should be suppressed.
Obviously the conviction of a criminal, from the result of "I don't know how I know he is guilty, I just have a feeling he is", is not a proper use of intuition, or rather, it is not a reliable source of 'knowledge' or evidence, for the conviction of a criminal. The people and the court require hard evidence; something they can see with their own eyes.
Intuition doesn't "Nag, Nag, Nag", as you say, but it has a 'Nagging' feeling to it.
"Something keeps bugging me about *insert situation*, and I can't shake it."
When I say 'nagging', as opposed to 'Gnawing', I am describing the difference between the 'Feeling' of a fear or paranoia, and they 'Feeling' of Intuition. The have two very different feelings to them.
Perhaps Intuition should be the primary, and Reason the way to tame our natural intuition, so that it becomes a workable guide in our everyday world? Or Vise-Versa?
Is there really anybody who has completely given up their Intuition, and been able to survive in this modern world?
Is there really anybody who has completely given up their Reason, and been able to survive in this modern world?
Should either be considered useless?
but when does it become unreliable? When our Ego denies that voice, saying that it is wrong; when our Reason and logic take over, and shut out that small voice? Or when it is allowed to completely take over, so that we completely ignore REason and Logic?
Has our Intuition been suppressed, because We live in a physical world of Reason and Logic?
Is intuition ever really wrong? Or could it only be wrong in the circumstances that we allow our flawed Reason and Logic to intervene?
Many do not believe Intuition really exists at all, and many believe that it does, but that it is nothing more than a remenant of our animal selves, that should be suppressed.
Obviously the conviction of a criminal, from the result of "I don't know how I know he is guilty, I just have a feeling he is", is not a proper use of intuition, or rather, it is not a reliable source of 'knowledge' or evidence, for the conviction of a criminal. The people and the court require hard evidence; something they can see with their own eyes.
But what of those who deny intuitions usefulness? Do those very same people use Intuition in their daily lives, despite this claim?
Does virtually everybody use intuition? And to what degree should we allow Intuition to rule our lives, over logic?
Perhaps the Ego itself does not use either; perhaps Intuition and Reason are merely 'guided' by the Ego; our own personal desires, and the laws of reality that we live in. But intuition does not in itself allow the Ego to influence it; it is as it is. Intuition is trumped by the Ego quite often, but this does not mean that our intuition ever really changes; The Ego just re-writes over our intuitions original answer, with an egotistical desire as to what it 'Wants' the answer to be, or what it logically 'thinks' the answer might be, according to either A.) Reality, or B.) Desire.
But Intuition often has this 'Nagging' Feeling when ignored; never too loud, never too quiet, but always nagging you in the back of your mind. Irrational Fear seems to have a different feel to it; its like a Fear, or Paranoia as you mentioned, smallmind, but its like a feeling in your gut or chest, rather than on the edge of your consciousness. Fear and paranoia have more of a 'gnawing' feeling, for lack of a better word.
But Intuition doesn't have the same feeling to it, its like its there, but not really there, as if its just at the edge of your mind...
Come to think of it, It almost has the same feeling as inspiration.....
Intuition doesn't "Nag, Nag, Nag", as you say, but it has a 'Nagging' feeling to it.
"Something keeps bugging me about *insert situation*, and I can't shake it."
When I say 'nagging', as opposed to 'Gnawing', I am describing the difference between the 'Feeling' of a fear or paranoia, and they 'Feeling' of Intuition. The have two very different feelings to them.
-
Craven - Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: 28 May 2007
|
|
|
|
by SmallMind on October 3rd, 2007, 2:49 pm
Glen, we are not necessarily at odds here. With whatever limited success, I have tried to distinguish between science as method and its prudential use. In this particular case, it would ask whether, all things considered, totally banning these products without coming up with efficient, affordable alternatives is a prudent course of action. On a grand scale, I would not want this decided by intuition. All things considered includes looking at the consequences to other sciences, including environmental science which, deprived of funds, could no longer report real findings by real people. Science is not free.
- SmallMind
- Member
- Posts: 876
- Joined: 19 May 2007
|
|
|
|
by Glen on October 3rd, 2007, 2:58 pm
Everyone,
No one is arguing that intuition is the end-all of understanding. Nor are they implying that intuition is, or should be, the primary dynamic involved in living and perception. It is part of a balance of all aspects of our perception, coming into play when and where applicable.
Regarding chemical contaminants, there may a question of the consequences of banning them. Intuition -- maybe just common sense -- tells me that the consequences of not banning them is worthy of consideration.
No one is arguing that intuition is the end-all of understanding. Nor are they implying that intuition is, or should be, the primary dynamic involved in living and perception. It is part of a balance of all aspects of our perception, coming into play when and where applicable.
Regarding chemical contaminants, there may a question of the consequences of banning them. Intuition -- maybe just common sense -- tells me that the consequences of not banning them is worthy of consideration.
- Glen
- Banned User
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 16 Jul 2007
- Location: A backstreet.
|
|
|
|
by newyear on October 3rd, 2007, 6:34 pm
Craven, although I believe that the mind is something incredible, and that all 'normal' individuals have the ability to be a genius in their particular field, intuition does play a part. However, another word that applies to intuition is guesswork. When one is in tune with their environment, and in tune with one's mind, and one's desires, then intuition or guesswork, is also in tune.
As smallmind is of a scientific mind, he must realise that advancement in science is not copying what has been done before, but using one's intuition or guesswork to produce something new.
Intuition without some 'path' is hit and miss, knowing one is following the correct path then intuition is working for one, and more guesses are successful.
As smallmind is of a scientific mind, he must realise that advancement in science is not copying what has been done before, but using one's intuition or guesswork to produce something new.
Intuition without some 'path' is hit and miss, knowing one is following the correct path then intuition is working for one, and more guesses are successful.
- newyear
- Active Member
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: 01 Jan 2007
- Location: Madrid
|
|
|
|
by stavrogin on October 3rd, 2007, 9:04 pm
i will posit a contrary view. if we consider ourselves natural beings, that is, borne from the earth, and products of evolution, and not the godly hand... and that as part of this evolution, as we lose claws and teeth and muscle, is a somewhat necessary fear of, and rejection of, the primal forces that surround us that has increased over time. intuition- that is a single step, instantaneous judgement, given all the information a single microsecond can provide us through all of our senses, and presented to the conscience in its most easily understood form, that is as a pure emotion, and seperated from instinct only by the complexity of these emotions- not just simply fight or flight, but a more evolved instinct necessary as we ourselves grew more complex. an evolved instinct.
to see reason then as an attempt to justify, or interpret, this instinct. we are still fearful of following our noses... intuition can be wrong, just as the wariest of wildebeest can lower their heads directly into the jaws of a crocodile. as we grew weaker, yet cleverer, more social, we added struts to our instinct- we reinforced it with reason. therefore, unlike wildebeeste, we would know not only that certain watering holes are dangerous, but that a crocodiles approach may defeat all our senses, and thus our instinct, and the fact that something does not 'feel' dangerous is not a justification for taking that risk. therefore we may use a device to bring the water to us... a lot of the more intelligent animals share reason, of some form, with us, although we have used it more to manipulate our environment. but in a natural sense, i would define reason as thought before action, and thought after an action.
logic is the sternest of the three sisters, the most unloving. what logic requires is to have no water, and no crocodiles. logic trusts nothing, and behaves like a once-cuckolded lover.. it imprisons freedom as well as fear. logic is cleanliness to the point of insanity. to make a logical decision one must cast aside both intuition and reason, and drain the pool altogether, shoot the crocodiles, and then put the water in little bottles a crocodile could never possibly fit in. an eminently logic solution to getting water, no doubt. but cowardice of the highest order, and thoroughly life-defeating.
the thing about logic is it infects ones whole life, as cowardice does. it may mean you will never be eaten by crocodiles, but you are doomed to fail nevertheless... how then will you trust yourself to pick-up the minute signals that girl across the bar is giving you? intuition is a far more desirable trait in a human... it shows a willingness to procreate, to embrace life. long may it be so. logically, the survival of the logical gene will lead to asexuality, and cloning.
to see reason then as an attempt to justify, or interpret, this instinct. we are still fearful of following our noses... intuition can be wrong, just as the wariest of wildebeest can lower their heads directly into the jaws of a crocodile. as we grew weaker, yet cleverer, more social, we added struts to our instinct- we reinforced it with reason. therefore, unlike wildebeeste, we would know not only that certain watering holes are dangerous, but that a crocodiles approach may defeat all our senses, and thus our instinct, and the fact that something does not 'feel' dangerous is not a justification for taking that risk. therefore we may use a device to bring the water to us... a lot of the more intelligent animals share reason, of some form, with us, although we have used it more to manipulate our environment. but in a natural sense, i would define reason as thought before action, and thought after an action.
logic is the sternest of the three sisters, the most unloving. what logic requires is to have no water, and no crocodiles. logic trusts nothing, and behaves like a once-cuckolded lover.. it imprisons freedom as well as fear. logic is cleanliness to the point of insanity. to make a logical decision one must cast aside both intuition and reason, and drain the pool altogether, shoot the crocodiles, and then put the water in little bottles a crocodile could never possibly fit in. an eminently logic solution to getting water, no doubt. but cowardice of the highest order, and thoroughly life-defeating.
the thing about logic is it infects ones whole life, as cowardice does. it may mean you will never be eaten by crocodiles, but you are doomed to fail nevertheless... how then will you trust yourself to pick-up the minute signals that girl across the bar is giving you? intuition is a far more desirable trait in a human... it shows a willingness to procreate, to embrace life. long may it be so. logically, the survival of the logical gene will lead to asexuality, and cloning.
- stavrogin
- Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: 28 Jul 2007
|
|
|
|
To the bridge!
by Glen on October 4th, 2007, 9:59 am
Kirk,
"Say what you will, Captain, but I would bring to your attention the innumerable occasions in which I have extricated both of our backsides from the proverbial fire by employing pure logic. And if you will kindly recall the incident on Rigel-5 in which we were contending with several Klingons who sought our vanquishment, you cannot but acknowledge the fact that I stood not only "my" ground, but some of yours as well. I have also placed myself between Dr. McCoy and danger; and I do not even like him.
"I would also ask you to take note that, despite your inference -- if not outright declaration -- that logic equals cowardice, I am not asking that you accompany me to an isolated area down in engineering where we might settle this issue once and for all as humans are so inclined to do; in fact, if the situation were reversed, I have no doubt that I would be picking myself up off the floor and seeking the services of the good doctor down in sickbay, and you would now be wrestling with the unfortunate fact that once again, your emotions have brought you to new heights of regret which you were unable to prevent.
"And please correct me if I am wrong, Captain, but your highly regarded "intuition" is something you tend to apply almost exclusively to calculating the odds of arranging a rendezvous with some female in the privacy of your quarters. And I believe I need not remind you that the application of that particular brand of intuition has often proved to be to the detriment of the ship and her crew. To sum up my position, Captain, I would pose the question: Where would you be without me?
"Lieutenant Uhura, locate Commander Stavrogin and inform him that I would like to have a word with him in private in an isolated area down in engineering, if you will." ;-)
Spock, out.
"Say what you will, Captain, but I would bring to your attention the innumerable occasions in which I have extricated both of our backsides from the proverbial fire by employing pure logic. And if you will kindly recall the incident on Rigel-5 in which we were contending with several Klingons who sought our vanquishment, you cannot but acknowledge the fact that I stood not only "my" ground, but some of yours as well. I have also placed myself between Dr. McCoy and danger; and I do not even like him.
"I would also ask you to take note that, despite your inference -- if not outright declaration -- that logic equals cowardice, I am not asking that you accompany me to an isolated area down in engineering where we might settle this issue once and for all as humans are so inclined to do; in fact, if the situation were reversed, I have no doubt that I would be picking myself up off the floor and seeking the services of the good doctor down in sickbay, and you would now be wrestling with the unfortunate fact that once again, your emotions have brought you to new heights of regret which you were unable to prevent.
"And please correct me if I am wrong, Captain, but your highly regarded "intuition" is something you tend to apply almost exclusively to calculating the odds of arranging a rendezvous with some female in the privacy of your quarters. And I believe I need not remind you that the application of that particular brand of intuition has often proved to be to the detriment of the ship and her crew. To sum up my position, Captain, I would pose the question: Where would you be without me?
"Lieutenant Uhura, locate Commander Stavrogin and inform him that I would like to have a word with him in private in an isolated area down in engineering, if you will." ;-)
Spock, out.
- Glen
- Banned User
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 16 Jul 2007
- Location: A backstreet.
|
|
|
|
by Paul Anthony on October 5th, 2007, 2:30 am
Glen, anyone who would get Spock on his side must be declared the winner of any logical argument! :-)
I'm going to suggest that much of what we call intuition is really logic applied by our logical brains without our conscious awareness.
Consider how you would determine the distance between yourself and an object in the distance. A mathematician might approach the problem using a geometric method known as "triangulation". If you can view the object from two different angles, you will have created a triangle. Your first point of observation is point A, your second point is point B, and the object is point C. The line between A and B is the base of the triangle (AB), and you can measure that distance. The lengths of the lines between A and C (AC) and between B and C (BC) are unknown, but you can measure the angle between AB and AC, and the angle between AB and BC. With that information you can calculate the height of the triangle.
Does that sound too complicated? Well, then let's just let our brains do it for us! You are already looking at the object from two points - your left eye and your right eye. Your brain already knows the distance between point A and point B - the distance between your two eyes. It also knows the angles, by how much you moved your eyes in order to focus them both on the same object. And then your brain does the math! Voila! You "intuitively" know how far the object is from your nose (the height of the triangle).
Everyone who has ever been born knows geometry - even if they don't know they know!
I'm going to suggest that much of what we call intuition is really logic applied by our logical brains without our conscious awareness.
Consider how you would determine the distance between yourself and an object in the distance. A mathematician might approach the problem using a geometric method known as "triangulation". If you can view the object from two different angles, you will have created a triangle. Your first point of observation is point A, your second point is point B, and the object is point C. The line between A and B is the base of the triangle (AB), and you can measure that distance. The lengths of the lines between A and C (AC) and between B and C (BC) are unknown, but you can measure the angle between AB and AC, and the angle between AB and BC. With that information you can calculate the height of the triangle.
Does that sound too complicated? Well, then let's just let our brains do it for us! You are already looking at the object from two points - your left eye and your right eye. Your brain already knows the distance between point A and point B - the distance between your two eyes. It also knows the angles, by how much you moved your eyes in order to focus them both on the same object. And then your brain does the math! Voila! You "intuitively" know how far the object is from your nose (the height of the triangle).
Everyone who has ever been born knows geometry - even if they don't know they know!
-
Paul Anthony - Resident Member
- Posts: 5713
- Joined: 10 Jul 2006
- Location: Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
|
by Craven on October 5th, 2007, 6:28 am
Artists often do their art by more of a 'sense' than by actual geometry.
Most artists tend to use a healthy portion of both Sense and analyzing, but both extremes unto themselves and in themselves, are often undesirable, except by one extreme sensed person or the other.
Perhaps, if in its entirety life is an art, which cannot be forced a certain way without discontentment, (and it is really done with more of a 'sense' than by a specific guide), then perhaps our perception is merely the pencil, and our bodies and minds the artist and the paper; perception is our medium between reality and our wishes.
Maybe intuition is our minds method of communication between the abstract and our minds, and logic is the communication between the analytical and our minds. If one were to use both in healthy parts as a whole, we could essentially understand anything, could we not?
Intuition, reason, logic. The subconscious, the medium, the conscious.
If we as humans have gone from the intuition sense; our animal sense, to our current analytical sense; in other words a complete pendulum swing from one extreme to the other, then This implies there must have been a halfway point of some kind, correct?
And so what would life have been like at this halfway point?
If Intuition is the thought process meant for the subconscious , and Logic is the the thought process meant for the conscious, then perhaps the soul, or spirit, is a representation of the subconscious.
The mind, the Body, and the Spirit.
perhaps Fantasy, Music, Dreams, (Not the knowledge learned from experience, but the experience itself) are methods of abstract Art (The act of putting these things on paper) that the subconscious self displays to the conscious mind; a method of communicating in a rough, abstract manner.
If this is so, then it must follow that that Literature, Math, and science are methods of analytical Art (The act of Constructing) that the conscious self displays to the subconscious mind; a method of communicating in a precise, analytical manner.
Then all of this goes to show that perhaps Religion and Belief is quite correct in what it says, although they are approaching it in a non analytical manner, which seems both at once astounding, and strange in nature to what we are Logically accustomed; our conscious way of thinking. Which is why Fantasy, Music, and Dreams Are so strange, and alluring at the same time.
Then this would go to follow that science is also correct in its own way as well; it is the interpretation of much of the 'Physical', and this makes it both desirable and yet so undesirable at the same time to our senses.
Then Both in healthy perspective and moderation... one could understand and/or do almost anything with enough patience and awareness.
analytical and abstract... Science and Religion... 'Sanity' and 'insanity'.... according to the 'Insane', and according to the 'Sane'.. or perhaps the 'sane' and the 'Insane'? Doesn't it really come down to perception?
So would this mean that Sanity and Insanity are relative to a medium? And one extreme or the other is generally undesirable by our selves? So moderation and awareness would allow a person to look and experience either without succumbing to either, it would follow. Hence the concept that delving into the dark recesses of ones mind is both dangerous and rewarding to those who seek a true map to its workings.
Perfect Beauty; a completely harmonious mixture of both, which puts the mind through an almost complete ecstasy, of mind, body and spirit. This in anything is oft considered both "Heavenly" and "Good".
I do not speak of applied aesthetics (Makeup, perfume etc); this in extreme, being an extreme, is more often than not undesirable in itself.
Evolution, the 'fall' of Adam and Eve, one in the same?
But this does not necessarily explain how the universe was made...but maybe there lies 'Clues' as to the answer in both science and religion; as long as a completely harmonious mixture of both was used?
Most artists tend to use a healthy portion of both Sense and analyzing, but both extremes unto themselves and in themselves, are often undesirable, except by one extreme sensed person or the other.
Perhaps, if in its entirety life is an art, which cannot be forced a certain way without discontentment, (and it is really done with more of a 'sense' than by a specific guide), then perhaps our perception is merely the pencil, and our bodies and minds the artist and the paper; perception is our medium between reality and our wishes.
Maybe intuition is our minds method of communication between the abstract and our minds, and logic is the communication between the analytical and our minds. If one were to use both in healthy parts as a whole, we could essentially understand anything, could we not?
Intuition, reason, logic. The subconscious, the medium, the conscious.
If we as humans have gone from the intuition sense; our animal sense, to our current analytical sense; in other words a complete pendulum swing from one extreme to the other, then This implies there must have been a halfway point of some kind, correct?
And so what would life have been like at this halfway point?
If Intuition is the thought process meant for the subconscious , and Logic is the the thought process meant for the conscious, then perhaps the soul, or spirit, is a representation of the subconscious.
The mind, the Body, and the Spirit.
perhaps Fantasy, Music, Dreams, (Not the knowledge learned from experience, but the experience itself) are methods of abstract Art (The act of putting these things on paper) that the subconscious self displays to the conscious mind; a method of communicating in a rough, abstract manner.
If this is so, then it must follow that that Literature, Math, and science are methods of analytical Art (The act of Constructing) that the conscious self displays to the subconscious mind; a method of communicating in a precise, analytical manner.
Then all of this goes to show that perhaps Religion and Belief is quite correct in what it says, although they are approaching it in a non analytical manner, which seems both at once astounding, and strange in nature to what we are Logically accustomed; our conscious way of thinking. Which is why Fantasy, Music, and Dreams Are so strange, and alluring at the same time.
Then this would go to follow that science is also correct in its own way as well; it is the interpretation of much of the 'Physical', and this makes it both desirable and yet so undesirable at the same time to our senses.
Then Both in healthy perspective and moderation... one could understand and/or do almost anything with enough patience and awareness.
analytical and abstract... Science and Religion... 'Sanity' and 'insanity'.... according to the 'Insane', and according to the 'Sane'.. or perhaps the 'sane' and the 'Insane'? Doesn't it really come down to perception?
So would this mean that Sanity and Insanity are relative to a medium? And one extreme or the other is generally undesirable by our selves? So moderation and awareness would allow a person to look and experience either without succumbing to either, it would follow. Hence the concept that delving into the dark recesses of ones mind is both dangerous and rewarding to those who seek a true map to its workings.
Perfect Beauty; a completely harmonious mixture of both, which puts the mind through an almost complete ecstasy, of mind, body and spirit. This in anything is oft considered both "Heavenly" and "Good".
I do not speak of applied aesthetics (Makeup, perfume etc); this in extreme, being an extreme, is more often than not undesirable in itself.
Evolution, the 'fall' of Adam and Eve, one in the same?
But this does not necessarily explain how the universe was made...but maybe there lies 'Clues' as to the answer in both science and religion; as long as a completely harmonious mixture of both was used?
-
Craven - Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: 28 May 2007
|
|
|
|
by Craven on October 5th, 2007, 7:46 am
Perhaps, if in its entirety life is an art, which cannot be forced a certain way without discontentment, (and it is really done with more of a 'sense' than by a specific guide)
Nay, Both a guide, and a sense. Hence Law and morals.
-
Craven - Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: 28 May 2007
|
|
|
|
by Annemieke on October 5th, 2007, 7:52 am
Craven wrote:If Intuition is the thought process meant for the subconscious , and Logic is the the thought process meant for the conscious, then perhaps the soul, or spirit, is a representation of the subconscious.
I agree with the spirit being the representation of the intuition. But talking about the subconscious I think you have to differentiate between the spirit and the soul. They are not the same in my opinion.
If the spirit would be the intuition, then I would call the soul our instinct. Which is different from intuition.
I see intuition more connected with our logic and our instinct more connected with our body (gut feeling, fight or flight reactions, disgust).
Intuition is more a sudden knowing without logic. But it needs logic to grow.
- Annemieke
- Member
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 10 Jul 2006
|
|
|
|
by Craven on October 5th, 2007, 7:53 am
When I refer to 'Soul', I mean its spiritual/religious representation as the subconscious.
The 'Soul' is the subconscious, our 'spirit' is a collection of all of the these things; Experience, Intuition, The subconscious, a persons morals, a persons general disposition (The disposition of the soul); it is the thing that cannot be seen, cannot be possessed, yet IS possessed.
A persons 'Being' is a combination of Mind, body, and Soul.
The 'Soul' is the subconscious, our 'spirit' is a collection of all of the these things; Experience, Intuition, The subconscious, a persons morals, a persons general disposition (The disposition of the soul); it is the thing that cannot be seen, cannot be possessed, yet IS possessed.
A persons 'Being' is a combination of Mind, body, and Soul.
-
Craven - Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: 28 May 2007
|
|
|
|
by stavrogin on October 5th, 2007, 8:47 pm
ah yes, spock! a pointy eared man who lives in space, kills with a touch, goes lunatic every so many years when his repressed sexuality resurfaces, and has become the cultural representation of logic for many!!! oh irony, how sweet dost thou taste. but everything he does he does because it is
right...he would break bread with a blessed christian with that morality!!! i consider logic cowardly the same way i consider golf not ' sport'...
nevertheless... we all desire castles. then it becomes a question of where we build them! logic is a bit of runt, as a philosophical entity that is, diversionary but never a destination, it never caught on with real thinkers, and was cast into the curio shop along with stoicism. of course, some locked themselves in their logical/stoical castles, but they were never meant for 'life' anyway... memes are persistent buggers though. logic exists primarily as a handbrake... some people use it far too often.
right...he would break bread with a blessed christian with that morality!!! i consider logic cowardly the same way i consider golf not ' sport'...
nevertheless... we all desire castles. then it becomes a question of where we build them! logic is a bit of runt, as a philosophical entity that is, diversionary but never a destination, it never caught on with real thinkers, and was cast into the curio shop along with stoicism. of course, some locked themselves in their logical/stoical castles, but they were never meant for 'life' anyway... memes are persistent buggers though. logic exists primarily as a handbrake... some people use it far too often.
- stavrogin
- Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: 28 Jul 2007
|
|
|
|
by Glen on October 5th, 2007, 9:13 pm
Stavrogin,
Disclaimer: The contents of the preceeding episode does not represent the opinions or beliefs of the management of this poster's faculties. For entertainment purposes only.
I agree with your assessment of golf. My opinion is that anything you can do while drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette is not a sport.
Disclaimer: The contents of the preceeding episode does not represent the opinions or beliefs of the management of this poster's faculties. For entertainment purposes only.
I agree with your assessment of golf. My opinion is that anything you can do while drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette is not a sport.
- Glen
- Banned User
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 16 Jul 2007
- Location: A backstreet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SmallMind on October 6th, 2007, 12:42 am
We may suppose that strong feelings for or against an individual or group can arise from out of nowhere. This we would not call reason. However to seek only evidence to support it and deliberately ignore that which opposes it is a particular species of reason called advocacy. It is practiced in debate where the objective is not to seek truth but rather to exercise skills designed to persuade, independent of the personal convictions of the debater.
- SmallMind
- Member
- Posts: 876
- Joined: 19 May 2007
|
|
56 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
The Science and Philosophy Forum is aimed at promoting knowledge, education, and discussion
between professionals, academics, amateurs, and the general public
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group