Physical Events, Physics and Metaphysics

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

No intuition is not really procedural, although it has some things in common with it. Certainly when you are really good at something through long practise, you have intuitive skills that make what you are doing seeem a bit magical to a beginner. But I also think intuition comes from unconscious mental processes and from harnessing all your being, not just your thinking mind, to an act or a problem.

As said above, people look for different things in philosophy. I have never been interested in empiricism. My feeling about empiricism is that its basic orientation is the defence of normality. Whether it started off that way, I don't know, but nowadays, it is the default position for the modern person. 'This existence is the only reality, I only believe what you can show me, philosophy is about sound reasoning', and so on. All well and good, it brings many benefits and is good in many respects, but it is not spiritually sustaining as far as I am concerned. But - each to his/her own, I am certainly not out to persuade or convert, and certainly one of the great benefits of modernity is the freedom to pursue any of these things, or none, and that is a great freedom indeed.

On a less personal note, however, and in keeping with the theme, I think the rejection of all things spiritual in Western philosophy is why Eastern philosophy is so popular all over the Western world As I have said before, I believe western philosophy has abandoned its mission (with honorable exceptions, of which I suspect Ortega is one, but need to do more reading on him).

If intuition is a way of knowing, then one person, A, cannot intuit P, and a different person, B, intuit ~P, since that would imply that P was both true and false, and that is a contradiction. Therefore, if we are going to use intuition as a way of knowing, we have to be able to tell whether A's intuition is a real or a pseudo-intuition, or B's intuition is real or pseudo. How do we do that? This has nothing to do with empiricism. Only with logic.

[odenskrigare]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

No intuition is not really procedural, although it has some things in common with it. Certainly when you are really good at something through long practise, you have intuitive skills that make what you are doing seeem a bit magical to a beginner. But I also think intuition comes from unconscious mental processes and from harnessing all your being, not just your thinking mind, to an act or a problem.

This is the view of mainstream cognitive psychology

Originally Posted by jeeprs

As said above, people look for different things in philosophy. I have never been interested in empiricism. My feeling about empiricism is that its basic orientation is the defence of normality. Whether it started off that way, I don't know, but nowadays, it is the default position for the modern person.

I disagree. I think the default position really is to bolster a psychologically immature egocentric reference with a sense of divine favor, protection, and stability

Originally Posted by jeeprs

On a less personal note, however, and in keeping with the theme, I think the rejection of all things spiritual in Western philosophy is why Eastern philosophy is so popular all over the Western world

That may be the case

Originally Posted by jeeprs

As I have said before, I believe western philosophy has abandoned its mission

huh

[kennethamy]

What was the mission of Western philosophy, and how do you know that was the mission? (I never knew that Western philosophy had any mission).

[Caroline]

One should feel something Kennethamy no matter what.

[jeeprs]

To find the fortune cookie that the saying had been wrapped in

[odenskrigare]

do you still seriously contend that Western philosophy has or has had a "mission"?

[jeeprs]

Alright I too am being polemical. Of course Western Philosophy is splintered into a million fragments now and besides the postmodernists distrust all grand narratives. But insofar as 'wisdom' really stood for something, and the Greeks had some common notion of what that was, and there was a tradition in which it was passed down, then yes: I think there was a mission. I am not highly schooled in the whole tradition, but I feel that Socrates' attitude, the kind of questions he asked, and the kind of man he was, is still relevant today and is not currently very well represented in the tradition he helped to spawn. I think the retreat into 'scientism', into only dealing with things that can be shown in the lab, really does fall short of what philosophy ought to be. I feel it really ought to make you ask questions about who you are and what your life is really about, and so on. And frankly I don't see much of that in Western philosophy any more.

So - yes.

[odenskrigare]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

I think the retreat into 'scientism', into only dealing with things that can be shown in the lab, really does fall short of what philosophy ought to be. I feel it really ought to make you ask questions about who you are and what your life is really about, and so on.

oh yes. I've asked myself many of those before, and the answers appear gloomy. if you let go of bias, really think about your place in the Universe, and not just adopt whatever view makes you feel warm and fuzzy, you will not like what you find

that's why I don't think about these questions much anymore. of course, they intrude sometimes ... and then trance music, Ridley Scott films, personal success, Borges, etc. make me forget I am nothing for a little while

[jeeprs]

But what you find, and what I find, may not be the same thing. And maybe the source of your gloom IS the very society we are in and the type of outlook - I dare not call it philosophy - it encourages. Socrates was cheerful to the end, and his end was not that great. Seriously, though, thankyou for you candour, I respect that.

[odenskrigare]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

And maybe the source of your gloom IS the very society we are in and the type of outlook - I dare not call it philosophy - it encourages.

oh yeah

as our ability to become great spirals up and up, our society becomes more and more banal ... in a word: crappy

I'm not really saying this in a sanctimonious way because I sure as hell am not an exception. though I haven't become a Cheeto-eating, mouth-breathing, IQ-of-50-having leech, yeah I def. eat up 420chan, Youtube Poop videos, Tourette's Guy, and whatnot ... while surrounded by opportunities to make myself a better person

but, anyway, no one should blame technology, science, analytic philosophy or whatever ... the blame rests firmly on our shoulders

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Socrates was cheerful to the end, and his end was not that great. Seriously, though, thankyou for you candour, I respect that.

well I exaggerated. there are things to get excited about. just a few minutes ago I was thinking about how awesome even the most vile bacterium is. really, think about how a bacteria are invisible self-sufficient machines living everywhere in all kinds of ways---our own bacterial colonies are like a parallel organ system. and now bacteria are serving as factories for us (e.g., insulin making)

I was thinking if I ever got a lethal bacterial infection and there was nothing the doctors could do I'd say to myself "it's a pleasure to be murdered by you"