law of attraction — 3017amen

Ahem. That's all I have to say about the law of attraction. I would be interested to hear what you have seen when you look into yourself while experiencing it though.

... Hence why philosophy should allow itself not to necessarily stay pigeonholed, and to access tools from both sides of the aisle as the case may be. To that end, in some ways your OP term "introspection" almost begged parsing those kinds of concerns viz Psychology. Or at least required one to spread the love at least partially in that direction. — 3017amen

You can't understanding epistemology without psychology. Introspection is the one process that allows us to observe psychology at the source.

The Psychology of Being — 3017amen

I'll take a look. Don't be shy about referring to books. I find them very useful. A few recommendations from others have really guided my understanding of philosophy, science, and psychology.

I think you should test your introspection. How many times do you get it wrong when considering how you introspect things to be or turn out which have a matter of fact answer? I think personally it's clear it isn't a valid source because of the amount of times my introspection doesn't work for me; I typically need to modify my first intuitions or introspections with reasoning — aporiap

Introspection is not the same thing as intuition. Introspection, as I've said, is just observation. I've spent a lot of attention observing my internal life. How can I be wrong about what I see? I can be wrong about what I do with those observations, but that's true of everything. Generally, I'd say introspection is at least as effective for me as other types of observation.

The true value of introspection is knowing your role in the creation of "the world" as it is known by you. Beyond truth is perspective as how you are is reflected in how you see the world, to try to know the world without knowing yourself is to ignore your biases and position in it. It would be an absurd undertaking in my mind. If your mood is dark then the world is a miserable place, if you're in love then the world is singing, it can be that basic but it can also be incomprehensible in complexity once factors are taken into consideration alongside each other. — Judaka

This is the heart of introspection for me. It has formed my understanding of knowledge and reality. I have always thought that temperament, our built-in attitudes toward the world, has a lot to do with which approaches to philosophy we take. I tend to have a positive attitude, the world is a wonderful place. That colors everything I think. That's why I started this thread, because introspection is so important to me.

Sharing subjective experiences (knowledge from introspection) with one another is not without its virtues or merit. T Clark ( and other's) you alluded to this I think. Thus we can gain knowledge through 'corroboration' or verifying similar experiences that we have, (with each other by trying to describe them). — 3017amen

Yes, I learn more about myself when I learn from others. Then again, learning more about others is also valuable in its own right. Understanding other people is a good thing.

I wouldn't say introspection is a source of knowledge; all the knowledge comes a posteriori ultimately but it certainly allows for sifting through and identifying what is sound true fact vs what is not. It's more a tool for gaining knowledge but not the source of knowledge. — aporiap

When I observe the outside world with my senses, e.g. a dog sitting on my lawn, is that observation a source of knowledge or a tool for gaining knowledge? In my view, introspection is an observation that is internal rather than external. I'm going to stick with "source of knowledge," but let's not get into a back and forth about it. I don't think it really matters.

I would distinguish between introspection and feelings, thoughts, beliefs or other mental objects because those things are still experiential/empirical. Identifying those things internally is still an empirical process -- you are recognizing facts about your inner life. The actual reasoning process/introspection is not the same thing. — aporiap

I have been making a distinction between introspection and "feelings, thoughts, beliefs, or other mental objects." Introspection is the act of observing those mental objects in myself.

I didn't really think this thread would go far when it started, but it has turned out to be really helpful for me. Having to explain, or at least try to explain, things to others really helps bring things together.

Which reverts right back to the original difficulty. We do introspect, but what are we really doing when we introspect? If we introspect from the arena that lacks experience, we are merely imagining; if we introspect from the arena that has experience, we are merely reviewing. Not drawing the line between them, is where the conventional meaning of introspection gets bogged down. — Mww

We're missing each other. The words we are using seem to mean different things to each of us. I'm not sure how to take it any further. I'll just start saying the same things over again.

Hey @3017amen, any thoughts?

" But perhaps we can pinpoint the nature of the thing that can’t be expressed, or find a way to describe what it consists of. I believe that there are at least four possible candidates for a non-nonsensical answer: ineffable objects, ineffable truths, ineffable content, and ineffable knowledge."

"From Kant onwards, philosophers’ interest in ineffable objects gave way to the idea that ineffability is a symptom of the insufficiency of language as a tool for capturing the ultimate truths of the world. Søren Kierkegaard suggested in 1844 that humans are trapped in the ‘ultimate paradox of thought’, wanting to discover things ‘that thought itself cannot think’. — 3017amen

There is only one thing that is ineffable. You know, it's that thing. That one thing that can't be spoken. Come on, you know.... That one, indivisible, unspeakable, unimaginable, impossible thing that is not a thing. You know - the Tao, the Will, noumena. Shit. Now it's a thing.

If I say the apple is red, but upon further observation it is a mottled color of red, we don't have a specific word from language that captures that specific color (from the color wheel). So in theory it becomes logically described as red and not red, and therefore becomes a half-truth. — 3017amen

Really? You have trouble describing things that include more than one color or shade? You have trouble talking about, telling the whole truth about zebras and flags? Sorry. I got a little excited there.

Similarly, it follows that in consciousness we can impart our subjective experiences, but you could say they are too, only half-truth's because of the limitations in language. — 3017amen

Sure, but I wouldn't say "half-truth," I'd say incomplete picture. But what's wrong with that. Our experience of everything is an incomplete picture. Plato knew that. Descartes knew that. You and @Mww know that.

I’m inclined to agree, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. — Mww

You say reification is dangerous. I say it's the way we make give things meaning. We do it all the time. It's our normal way of operating.

Of course, but possibility can only be shown theoretically. It is impossible for any theory to attain to an empirical proof. We don’t KNOW how we think. We don’t even KNOW if it’s thinking we’re doing. We just call it that because we don’t know what it really is, and just like any good theory, all it has to do is be internally consistent and non-contradictory with itself, which in turn can serve as no more than a mere logical justification. — Mww

When I say it's possible to experience how I know what I know, I mean that I can do it. I have done it. I'm doing it right now. I guess you can deny my experience, but it's not just me.

And what do you mean "we don't know if it's thinking we're doing." I can't figure out what that means. That's like saying "we don't know if it's swimming we're doing." As Louden Wainwright III sang:

This summer I went swimming
This summer I might have drowned
But I held my breath and I kicked my feet
And I moved my arms around

Yup, that's swimming.

But could you at least end this on a high note and answer the question? — Shamshir

I thought I already did end it on a high note. My intent was to be friendly and conciliatory while saying I don't think it will be fruitful to continue the discussion at this time.

You cannot just call something "Kantian deontology" without actually looking at Kant's reasoning. There's not even any mention of the categorical imperative here. — Echarmion

Yes. This is just the same old anti-natalist argument as we've seen in five other threads recently. Those have all been combined by the moderators into one thread, which is still active. This discussion belongs there.

Do you agree you are immersed in space? — Shamshir

You won't convince me. I won't convince you. You have learned something today - there are people, at least one person, who doesn't think objective reality exists. That's probably as much as you're going to get out of this.

Doesn’t matter if I agree with your terminology or not. Even so, if you don’t think reason, consciousness, plays any part in the perception of your internal states, first, what part do they play other than that, and second, what does play a part in the perception of your internal states. — Mww

This is what I wrote in a previous post to try to describe what it feels like to experience an internal state in a way that isn't rational.

Imagine one of your favorite foods - for me it's, let's say, a nice creamy fish chowder. I picture the bowl. Imagine the smell and the feel of it on my tongue - the warmth, the flavor, the feel of the chunks of haddock in my mouth. Don't label it, put it into words, think about it. Just experience it. That is non-rational. — T Clark

Just try introspecting about something the knowledge of which is impossible. Can’t be done. — Mww

Can you give an example of something the knowledge of which is impossible? I can't think of any. Or do you just mean something that doesn't exist - like unicorns or magic.

Try introspecting about something the knowledge of which is possible, but you have no experience with it. That can be done, but it is no different than imagining, and imagining has no certain ground anywhere, — Mww

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Imagination. I can observe myself imagining something that doesn't exist. That's introspection. What do you mean when you say "imagination has no certain ground anywhere." Maybe things I imagine have no certain ground, but imagination itself does. Imagination is a mental process just like reason, or feeling, or perception, or memory. It can be observed, again, by introspection.

There is no choice in the matter - it is inescapable. — Shamshir

I don't agree. We've probably taken this as far as we can right now.

Reason, too. Reason the verb is the reification of the abstract thing we do; reason the noun is the reification of the abstract thing describing how it is being done.

Reification is dangerous, nonetheless. Sometimes necessary for communication of ideas, sometimes self-contradictory. But we all do it, sooner or later, in other than the more mundane circumstances. — Mww

"Reason" is no more a reification of an abstract thing than "digestion" is a reification of the process my digestive system uses to break down food for use in my body.

If I don’t know how I know what I know, — Mww

It is possible to know, or at least experience, how you know what you know.

I have no right to suppose anything of the sort, within the context of internal musings. Subjectivity is private, by definition, hence entirely inaccessible to any other subjectivity. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to claim manifestations of subjectivity in others, is grounded in, or predicated on, my own, to whit, I have witnessed a guy accidentally hit himself with a hammer, in the course of events under which a hammer would normally be used, and continue on as if it never happened. — Mww

You share your subjectivity with people all the time. You are doing it right here. Don't you ever hear of someone else's experiences and recognize them as similar to experiences you've had - sadness, happiness, pain, the taste of a hotdog? Of course the sharing is imperfect.

And it does.
Are you suggesting the imperceptibility of Superman denies this? — Shamshir

Sorry, you've lost me.

I'll say it again - objective reality neither exists no doesn't exist. It is a metaphysical concept. We can choose to use, consider it or not. I often choose not to consider it.

Without an objective reality - there's nothing to base your question on, and it is void.

The very rejection of an objective reality denotes an objective reality as a prerequisite.
How could you come to reject what isn't? You would be rejecting nothing. — Shamshir

I don't understand your point. Does this make sense? "The very rejection of the existence of Superman denotes the existence of Superman as a prerequisite."

The dog on your lawn comes to your attention by sensibility; the contents of your mind come to your attention by reason alone, no matter that they were put there beforehand by sensibility, or by sheer imagination. — Mww

I don't see it that way. I don't think reason, consciousness, plays any part in my perception of my internal states. I don't know if you agree with my using "consciousness" as a fill-in for "reason" in this case.

Which is, of course, what we are all trying to do. Can we do it? — Bitter Crank

Yes. Sort of. Sometimes. To a certain extent. Yes dammit!!!

One of the great limitation in sharing our minds, mental life, inner being... with others is the enormous volume of content that amounts to even brief experiences. For a good deal of experience we have no words. There are odors, for instance that we find attractive, disgusting, appetizing, and so forth which we would be very hard-pressed to describe beyond saying "Mint smells like mint". How does one describe the odor of a ripe pear? Or a spoiled tomato? Or a quite dead squirrel? Or rain on a warm concrete road? Or the sensation of swallowing a spoonful of haddock chowder? The feel of a very dry, cold wind? A twitching muscle? The sensation of suddenly remembering something important you forgot? — Bitter Crank

Sure, but I have had experiences that are the same or similar to those you have described. You don't have to create them for me from scratch. We have great stores of common experience even with people who are very different from us.

When I see ground cherries at the farmers market (never see them anywhere else) I remember seeing ground cherries growing in our neighbor's garden; that memory is at least 60+ years old. — Bitter Crank

I had never heard of ground cherries before. Now I have. I looked them up on the web. This is what "Smithsonian" says - "..tastes like a cherry tomato injected with mango and pineapple juice, and looks like an orange pearl encased in a miniature paper lantern." That seems like a pretty good sharing of your introspection to me.

Some of our actions are just too embarrassing to talk about, and I wasn't even thinking about sexual misadventures. — Bitter Crank

Have you been talking to my wife?

So, to make a long story short, we may over-estimate just how much of our selves we can or will actually reveal. — Bitter Crank

I can't say that I don't hide parts of myself from others. As I've said, I hide parts of myself from myself. I've been known to lie to avoid admitting something shameful. On the other hand, with me, what you see is pretty much what you get. I've felt lonely and alone, depressed, but I've never felt cut off, alienated, from other people. I always feel a connection with the people I meet and humanity as a whole. I can see people as they are, at least sometimes, imperfectly. Of course I'm often wrong, but I'm often wrong about everything.

Ironically enough, my best friend who is an engineer , we have yearly mantra's and one of them was Awareness. We learned so much from the concept of awareness that we extended it another year. We would get together and 'pontificate ' our experiences from both our personal and professional activities. It was very revelatory. We made a joke and asked each other from time to time, any 'awareness ' today ? — 3017amen

Awareness has become more and more important to me as I've gotten older. There are so many things to be aware of - body, emotions, thought processes, skills, perceptions, ideas, others. Maybe the most interesting thing I've found is that the process of becoming aware is the same for all these different types. So, yes, I try to be aware of my awareness too.

Anyway my point there is, it's important to have awareness and practice awareness. And my intuition tells me to draw from, in this case, classical philosophy, post modern Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, science, etc. etc. This is the twenty-first century, we need to allow ourselves to use the appropriate tools that are now and have been available. — 3017amen

In another recent thread, I wrote about what I think of as my body of knowledge. It's everything I know, feel, see, experience, learn, think about - all jammed into one package. I see that as the source of my intuition. I see introspection, awareness as the most important component of that body of knowledge. I guess it's the cement that holds them all together.

There are ways in which the distinction could be considered to be artificial or at least not cut and dried, but I think it is more or less useful nonetheless. — Janus

I agree and I do think that the distinctions are artificial. I think of babies. At a certain age, maybe 5 months, they start touching parts of their bodies. They get very interested in their feet and love to play with them. There is a yoga position where you lie on your back and reach up and grab your toes. They call the position "happy baby."

The babies see their feet. Then they touch them and feel the touch. I always think that is when they learn that their feet are part of themselves. I don't know if that is correct in terms of developmental psychology, but it seems plausible, and it gives me pleasure to think it.

I'm simply asking - why do you add 'real'?
What is the difference besides practical semblance?
They are based on the same principles, so their derivations of weather - excluding how each is made - are functionally the same. — Shamshir

I still don't understand. I don't see how the weather we experience in the world is any more like the weather model than the George Washington Bridge is like a picture of the George Washington Bridge.

Objective reality is inescapable and the metaphysical question you propose, is situated within its stable ground. — Shamshir

I don't see it that way. I don't see any reason to just repeat my arguments.

I am neither a follower of any religion nor an atheist. From my experience here and in other places, the parties most responsible for the poor quality of the discussions are the atheists. Specific example threads:

• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]
• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]
• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]
• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]
• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]

As you can see, all the threads are started by the same member.

And no - the moderators did not actually edit this post.

The objections are strictly from a epistemological philosophy, not a psychological character evaluation. — Mww

Yes, I understand that. Although we are talking about psychological phenomena, we are talking about them from a philosophical, as you say, epistemological, point of view. For me, that's the whole point of this thread, which, by the way, I'm finding very satisfying.

Self-knowledge is real knowledge, though it is knowledge that only the subject person can possess in detail, and introspection is the essential process of gaining it. — Bitter Crank

I think I may disagree with this. Let's see. This thread is a very good example of me trying to communicate my mental life to others. Others are doing the same thing. Of course it's easier for external experience because others can participate in the observation directly. Then again, how is that different from me communicating my experiences during my trip to the Netherlands, a place you've never been. Unless you have been to the Netherlands, in which case the trip was to Zimbabwe. Or was it Zambia. Tell me why the only two countries in Africa that start with a "Z" are next to each other. By the way, the Netherlands is a wonderful place. I don't know about Zambia or Zimbabwe.

A question: How much of our self-knowledge can a benign interrogator (not the water-boarding type) gain through long-term discussion (such as that with a psychoanalyst)? Can one unpack somebody else's mind, with their cooperation? (Not now. if there is no willingness to share.). — Bitter Crank

I have no trouble learning things about other people - how they think or feel, their attitudes and motivations, through listening to what they say and observing their behavior. Of course it should be easier for them than it is for me. On the other hand, I have often found that I can be aware of something going on in the mind of another that they are not aware of themselves. You're a perceptive, empathetic person. I'm sure you have experienced that too.

There is a paradox in "the unexamined life is not worth living" and that is that most of us can not do mature self-examination until much of our life has been lived. — Bitter Crank

That's true, as we both know well, but old guys know a lot of things that other people don't. Self-knowledge is a gift given to us now as compensation for what is being taken away. Or some bullshit like that.

Which seems to say you think we can reason from observation independent of a mode of observation. Which is a perfect example of why I insist (to myself, to be sure) on assigning observation to the empirical domain alone. — Mww

Introspection is one mode of observation. Another is paying attention to what is happening in the world using your sense of sight. Introspection exists in the empirical domain as much as observation using the sense of touch or smell does.

maybe it’s just me exercising overly-critical thinking. I do that a lot, I must say. — Mww

It seems your experience is different than mine. I don't see why that is a problem. It doesn't bother me. You now know that some people experience introspection as a form of observation even though you don't. That seems like an interesting thing for you to know.

Gonna have to object to that; I can safely say I’ve never seen myself think. I can imagine myself sitting on a rock, appearing to ponder this or that, but nothing concerning the this or that can arise from it, that isn’t actually me doing it. — Mww

I don't know why you would object. I've tried to make it clear that I am describing my own experiences, although I do know that those experiences aren't unique to me. Apparently you have different experiences. Why is that a problem?

Truth be told, I don’t know how to respond to the idea that observation has something to do with that which is not of the senses, — Mww

I assume you have been aware of your own mental life. I don't see how that is different from being aware of the dog sitting on my lawn. They both have come to your attention by way of mental processes.

Cool. Then I think our main disagreement is just in our characterization of introspection. I don't really think of it as a method for gaining knowledge because knowledge is a social phenomena -- it's something we produce together. Whereas introspection is looking in at the self, so it necessarily could not be knowledge (if my characterization of knowledge is held to, at least -- obviously there's other ways of parsing knowledge). — Moliere

I don't think knowledge is necessarily a social phenomenon. Also, what I know from introspection can be social. This thread is good evidence for that.

All in all, I don't think you and I are far apart.

...another ironic thing about the act of introspection is, once one decides to embark on the self-discovery process, something completely novel can be uncovered. And that sort of begs the question(s) of whether that new knowledge always existed; it just required you to uncover it. And then in turn that could lead to other questions about, say, the Will and its function in our consciousness. — 3017amen

It is very common for me to become aware of something about myself that was always there but which I was not previously aware of. Example - I practice Tai Chi at a beginner level. Every time I go through the movements, I become more aware of my body. The movements draw my attention to what's going on inside me. Sometimes something my instructor says will do the same thing. Another example - I normally have pretty even moods. I'm very high energy and rarely depressed. Recently I found myself being really down for a couple of weeks. Then, it happened again a month later. Looking at the episodes, I realized that in both cases I had been very angry at someone I cared about. That connection - depression and anger - was a new one for me. It opens up a lot of possibilities that I'll need to explore.

That much of our mental processing takes place below the level of consciousness awareness is not news. William James, Freud, and others were realizing that in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some of that unconscious processing can be brought into our awareness. It seems likely to me that a lot, probably most, cannot.

But I worry one can get lost in it, almost to the point of solipsism. Like the Jourdain’s paradox, it is almost inevitable that introspection becomes self-referential and circular. — NOS4A2

I think that rationality is more likely to lead to circular, even chaotic, discussions than introspection is.

My point was the mentioning your occupation was irrelevant to the idea you were putting forward. — rlclauer

I disagree.

In my opinion, the only reason you mentioned it is because you take great pride in the fact that you are an engineer, and not part of the unwashed masses. — rlclauer

Don't psychoanalyze me. Respond to my statements.

[edit] Let's make that "Respond to my fucking statements."

Introspection is more a mode, or kind, of rationality, rather than a separation from it. — Mww

Introspection is a mode of observation, not rationality. Or do you think observation is a rational process? I don't. First you observe, then you think about what you've seen. Rinse and repeat.

When we reason we are repeatedly checking our arguement. This means checking the words we use, their semantics, the scope of the premises and so on. This requires (no doubt quick) dips into introspection. Does it feel right? Does that seem justified? We mull, and then wait for a quale of 'that is fair' 'that makes sense' 'that follows'. Small moments of feeling that it makes sense. — Coben

You do that. I do that, but I don't think most people do that, or at least I'm not sure they do. You can just think without thinking about thinking.

Can one reason from observation independent of introspection?

Yes, I think we can.

Even self-knowledge, I think, is better understood in conjunction with other ways of gaining knowledge. Not that you could have self-knowledge without introspection, but rather that speaking to others -- be it friends or priests or therapists -- helps one to gain self-knowledge better than introspection alone. — Moliere

In my experience, all the ways of gaining knowledge are generally working together all the time. In my experience a good therapist or a friend who knows you well helps you improve your self-awareness, make your introspection more effective.

All that being said I do agree that introspection can be valuable. I also think that we can get a bit too caught up in ourselves by introspecting, though perhaps you'd call that something other than introspection. — Moliere

Funny. I would say the same thing about rationality. Just look at all the people who tangle themselves up with their words here on the forum and elsewhere. I can't deny I've done it myself.

Ratiocination without introspection: I'd love to see an example of that. You'd not be able to notice your own internal evaluations of the semantics of the terms in your argument. You'd not be able to notice the 'there, I these premises seem correct' quale. You'd have no way of noticing if it seemed right to you that your argument was sound. And so on. — Coben

I don't think most people observe their thinking while they are thinking. I think they just think. That requires that they be aware of the issues being discussed, but not of the mental processes themselves. I often experience being aware of my mental processes while I'm thinking, feeling, perceiving. So, I'm aware that I'm aware of my thinking.

Introspection without ratiocination: that could lead to knowledge via intuition. You might have a sudden insight, with some black boxed process leading to it. — Coben

Yes, that happens to me all the time. Most of my ideas just pop up. For me, that's where rationality comes in - when I try to explain them to myself and others.

I'm going to have a bowl of fish chowder for lunch today. Thanks for the inspiration.