Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 11171819202122232425 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 840 of 1008

Thread: Interesting articles thread

  1. #801

  2. #802
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,777
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well our "intuition" is just a kind of a theory about the world that we have yet to understand how it works, and yet we somehow claim it to be self-evidently true. But if we claim anything to be self-evidently true, then it's just a way to shield itself from any further criticism. What is thought of to be self-evidently true is not always so self-evidently true after all.

    So Jungianism is just a mix of Empiricism, Inductivism and Intuitionism. Jung basically just observed a bunch of patients, and categorized them as he perceived them. And he concluded that that must be true, because his sense-perceptions can't be telling him lies, if only perhaps he were truly honest with himself and rid himself of all prejudices and assumptions. The ideal is to have access to a kind of a direct, "pure" experience of reality, if you will, which has rid itself of all sorts of impurities.

    So obviously, the Socionists have inherited this view, and they also conclude that the "typings" must be based on self-evidently true intuitions or sense-perceptions. This is why "battletyping" will always just end with "My perception is more right than your perception, because my perception can't be wrong and it can't be criticized because it's self-evidently true. And if it's wrong, then it must be due to some impure influences, such as that we aren't interpreting the theory purely enough."
    Something that’s self-evident isn’t intuition unless you’re referring to common sense.

    Intuition consists of peripheral knowledge which the poster below you explained.

  3. #803

  4. #804

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,093
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think positive thinking is a good thing. The problem is when people try to think positively when they don't have anything positive to think about. Optimism sucks though since that's just the theory that if you sit back and carefully make sure to do nothing everything will magically become awesome instead of going to hell in a handbasket.

  5. #805

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Something that’s self-evident isn’t intuition unless you’re referring to common sense.
    An Intuitionist would say that a certain kind of intuition is self-evident, therefore need no longer be questioned.

    intuitionism

    the theory that primary truths and principles (especially those of ethics and metaphysics) are known directly by intuition.
    What I'm saying is that an intuition is just a certain kind of a theory or background knowledge that we have yet to understand how it works.

    Anyway, there's actually no such thing as something that's "self-evident", it just means that it hasn't been challenged yet and we have yet to have an explanation for why that thing is the way it is, which is a normal state for most things, because we have no ultimate justifications for anything. And we don't need ultimate justifications. We just propose an (unjustified) idea, then we criticize it so that it can be improved.

  6. #806

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,093
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu That's not the case. If you question intuitions you just validate or falsify them the same way as if you question empiricist data. I do that all the time. It doesn't invalidate intuition as a faculty. You can try to invalidate intuition but first you need a proper definition of intuition. If people here want to be cool, don't know what intuition means, and think it means common sense, that's their problem. Intuitive as an adjective is used sort of like common sense but that's still not really what it means.

  7. #807

  8. #808

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    @Singu That's not the case. If you question intuitions you just validate or falsify them the same way as if you question empiricist data. I do that all the time. It doesn't invalidate intuition as a faculty. You can try to invalidate intuition but first you need a proper definition of intuition. If people here want to be cool, don't know what intuition means, and think it means common sense, that's their problem. Intuitive as an adjective is used sort of like common sense but that's still not really what it means.
    I think it's only confusing if we take the Instrumentalist approach and say that as long as an intuition can give us the correct data or something, then who cares how we arrived at that data? But it's problematic if we were to seek explanations for how we arrived at that data or even why that data should be correct and what we have expected in the first place.

  9. #809

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,093
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think it's only confusing if we take the Instrumentalist approach and say that as long as an intuition can give us the correct data or something, then who cares how we arrived at that data? But it's problematic if we seek explanations for how we arrived at that data or even why that data should be correct and what we have expected in the first place.
    If you use intuition, that's the explanation, you arrived at the data through intuition. It's like if you see something, the explanation for how you arrived at the data is you saw it, and if you worked through a logical proof, the explanation for the data is you worked through a logical proof. How do you plan on getting rid of intuition? If you do that you'll just live in a world consisting of a bunch of nonsensical data and have to reason through everything if you can figure it out at all.

  10. #810

  11. #811

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,093
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Anyway, there's actually no such thing as something that's "self-evident", it just means that it hasn't been challenged yet and we have yet to have an explanation for why that thing is the way it is, which is a normal state for most things, because we have no ultimate justifications for anything. And we don't need ultimate justifications. We just propose an (unjustified) idea, then we criticize it so that it can be improved.
    This makes no sense. We don't need to form some sort of falsification club and challenge everything and just endlessly improve ideas. You need an ultimate justification for at least one thing to know what "improved" consists of anyways. For example, let's say I think it's better for things to be lighter than to be heavier since that looks good on paper, right? Since I decided the most important thing to start with is humanity, I shall propose that we all get our limbs cut off and then get whittled down until we weigh nothing at all. Then, we shall be completely improved.

  12. #812

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    If you use intuition, that's the explanation, you arrived at the data through intuition. It's like if you see something, the explanation for how you arrived at the data is you saw it, and if you worked through a logical proof, the explanation for the data is you worked through a logical proof. How do you plan on getting rid of intuition? If you do that you'll just live in a world consisting of a bunch of nonsensical data and have to reason through everything if you can figure it out at all.
    I think that's just prediction, not explanation.

    I'm not trying to get rid of intuition, I'm just saying that it has yet to have an explanation. If we literally have nothing else to go by other than intuition, then we'll go with intuition. But if we had an explanation for something, then obviously something with an explanation will be superior to something without an explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    This makes no sense. We don't need to form some sort of falsification club and challenge everything and just endlessly improve ideas. You need an ultimate justification for at least one thing to know what "improved" consists of anyways. For example, let's say I think it's better for things to be lighter than to be heavier since that looks good on paper, right? Since I decided the most important thing to start with is humanity, I shall propose that we all get our limbs cut off and then get whittled down until we weigh nothing at all. Then, we shall be completely improved.
    The criteria will be whether it solves a problem better or not. So first we'll need to constitute a problem of some kind. And if you say "Well what do you mean by better?", then that will also be decided by the premise being proposed by the problem.

    And even if you have no reason for anything, you still can go ahead with it anyway. Unless you have an alternative and you can criticize that idea. Then we'll go with an alternative instead.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  13. #813

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,093
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu You already said that you arrive at the data through intuition. So, yes, you can arrive at data through intuition. There is a difference between explaining the data (reasoning) and explaining how you arrived at the data (in this case, intuition.)

    I think your problem is confusing the idea of something with the actual thing. Explaining that you arrived at something through intuition is a form of reasoning, but intuition itself is not reasoning. Intuition is a logical necessity because in order to arrive at anything through reasoning, you have to have something you didn't reason first. And a technicality for anyone who notices: you could have all your data given to you by authority, but in that case the process(es) of reasoning itself would still have to be an intuition. So by definition it's impossible to explain away intuition. I hear a lot of people arguing that you can never really know anything and it's always an argument against direct knowledge a la Kant's tirade against human intuition. I think it's patently wrong that you can never really know anything but maybe it's just the case that they can't really know anything because they don't want to but I can. If they argue that's not the case (good, they get some self-respect) then they know something. Muahahaha.

    I think the real question is, knowledge with respect to what? And making purely academic arguments for the sake of what sounds good is a horrible what.
    Last edited by coeruleum; 03-02-2019 at 07:01 AM.

  14. #814

  15. #815

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    @Singu You already said that you arrive at the data through intuition. So, yes, you can arrive at data through intuition. There is a difference between explaining the data (reasoning) and explaining how you arrived at the data (in this case, intuition.)
    You don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Intuition by definition is something that you've arrived at without conscious reasoning. It doesn't have an explanation.

    We calculate things in our head but we don't know how we do it. But we know how calculators and computers work.

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    I think your problem is confusing the idea of something with the actual thing. Explaining that you arrived at something through intuition is a form of reasoning, but intuition itself is not reasoning.
    Well that's the entire problem with Intuitionism, that it places intuition above even pure logic and pure reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    Intuition is a logical necessity because in order to arrive at anything through reasoning, you have to have something you didn't reason first.
    How can it be a logical necessity, when intuition does it away with logic? It places itself above logic.

    The only thing that we can conclude is that there is certain logic to intuition, we just don't know how it works yet.

    As for the bolded part, people have been trying to find the "ultimate justification" for logical premises forever. They've been saying that if something isn't justified, then it's meaningless or worthless. Saying that an intuition is the ultimate foundation is just one of the proposed justifications, which is what we call Intuitionism. And if you say that something is self-evidently true, then it is true and it can't be proven wrong, albeit it's only circular reasoning.

    However ever since Popper, we've done a 180 degree turn and said that we don't need to have justifications. We just propose an unjustified idea, and then we criticize it if we find it to be problematic.

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    I think it's patently wrong that you can never really know anything but maybe it's just the case that they can't really know anything because they don't want to but I can. If they argue that's not the case (good, they get some self-respect) then they know something. Muahahaha.

    I think the real question is, knowledge with respect to what? And making purely academic arguments for the sake of what sounds good is a horrible what.
    I wouldn't say that we can never really know anything, I would say that we could never know anything perfectly or absolutely, because of the fact that information is infinite. And in practical ways, because people are free to criticize anything, and people will eventually find cracks and flaws in any premises and foundations.

  16. #816

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,093
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu If you use intuition to gain knowledge, then you probably do know how you gained that knowledge, which is through intuition. Intuition is direct perception.

    Intuition is logically necessary because in order to have logic, you need to have non-logic, and while "non-logic" doesn't have to be a form of knowledge, the fact is that if you try to derive everything logically, you end up in an infinite regress of logic which is impossible to go through linearly. Intuition is the inverse to infinitary logic, since even an infinite logical set can't explain all things so you also have zero logic. You can rationally explain any fact you can intuit but you can't get rid of intuition as a faculty in the process since any (abstract) knowledge you have is the result of both intuition and reason to some extent as a matter of course.

    I would place intuition above reasoning due to the fact that it's more basic but that's different than intuition without reasoning. I thought pure reasoning was obviously problematic though.

  17. #817
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,777
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    An Intuitionist would say that a certain kind of intuition is self-evident, therefore need no longer be questioned.



    What I'm saying is that an intuition is just a certain kind of a theory or background knowledge that we have yet to understand how it works.

    Anyway, there's actually no such thing as something that's "self-evident", it just means that it hasn't been challenged yet and we have yet to have an explanation for why that thing is the way it is, which is a normal state for most things, because we have no ultimate justifications for anything. And we don't need ultimate justifications. We just propose an (unjustified) idea, then we criticize it so that it can be improved.
    ....

    1) Intuitionism isn’t the same thing as intuition in general. These are different concepts.

    2) Intuition doesn’t have to be a theory if you don’t want it to be lol.

    3) Well, it can be argued I guess that what is considered self-evident or common sense can be subjective sometimes.

  18. #818

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,359
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Intuition is always numerous steps a head of empiricism, which can only really operate in hindsight. If it weren't for intuition, we would do or say anything because it wasn't scientifically proven yet. We use it everyday in numerous different situation and is a large driver of our behavior. However, due to their subjective nature we should not hesitate to question intuitions that go against strong empirical data and evidence, as long as the data has a high confidence of being right. The data should count.

    Live by intuition, learn by science.

    Life is more meaningful with intuition as a guide. It is important for so many things, from art, to the humanities, to the sciences. It is a large component of who we are. Without it, we would not have imagination, and as Einstein once said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

  19. #819

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    @Singu If you use intuition to gain knowledge, then you probably do know how you gained that knowledge, which is through intuition. Intuition is direct perception.
    Which you can logically or rationally criticize, because no theory or perception is perfect.

    An Intuitionist would say that such a criticism is invalid, because an intuition is placed outside of logic. Then they will continue to say that an intuition is self-evidently true. So this just sort of turns into Solipsism, where they say that only what they can personally perceive or intuit is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    Intuition is logically necessary because in order to have logic, you need to have non-logic, and while "non-logic" doesn't have to be a form of knowledge, the fact is that if you try to derive everything logically, you end up in an infinite regress of logic which is impossible to go through linearly. Intuition is the inverse to infinitary logic, since even an infinite logical set can't explain all things so you also have zero logic. You can rationally explain any fact you can intuit but you can't get rid of intuition as a faculty in the process since any (abstract) knowledge you have is the result of both intuition and reason to some extent as a matter of course.

    I would place intuition above reasoning due to the fact that it's more basic but that's different than intuition without reasoning. I thought pure reasoning was obviously problematic though.
    I don't think you can rationally explain intuition by that definition. Which is why an intuition is supposedly placed outside of logic. And then it's illogically assumed to be self-evidently true.

    So I would say that an intuition is merely something without a theory of how that works. We can start with an unjustified intuition, but that doesn't mean that an intuition can't be explained or be criticized and improved.

  20. #820

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,093
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu that's all nonsense. Please go back to teaching us about Popper's books and about empiricism and the scientific method. Thanks!
    Last edited by coeruleum; 03-02-2019 at 06:27 PM.

  21. #821

  22. #822

  23. #823

  24. #824

  25. #825
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,603
    Mentioned
    678 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The author of this article is LIE to the core: https://ritholtz.com/2019/03/its-not...ny-capitalism/

  26. #826

  27. #827

  28. #828

  29. #829
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know more than one with this addiction, so I wanted to understand more, and read a lot, and this was the best article of the many I read. Especially because of what she says at the end. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ddiction-today
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  30. #830

  31. #831

  32. #832

  33. #833

  34. #834

  35. #835
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,060
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is the natural outcome of an atheistic, moral relativist culture. Why be serious about anything if nothing matters?

    And yes, there is a lot to learn from black culture in this regard.

  36. #836

  37. #837

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,093
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    America, From Exceptionalism to Nihilism

    This is pretty much the same topic as Love in the Time of Capital. Cool.

  38. #838

  39. #839

  40. #840

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •