1. YDo we really have choices? Aren't we all slaves to our nature? — TheMadFool
However even in the drivers seat we must go where we want but what we want isn't something that we have power over. — TheMadFool
I'm just bored by the concept of cognitive bias because everyone has it. — Noble Dust
So it's important to get to the point where we recognize that we have it, but from there, there's no reason to put it on a pedestal or use it as an intellectual weapon. — Noble Dust
When we do that, we undermine intuition; you have an intuition about wisdom; so do I. — Noble Dust
It's a fantasy to imagine that you or I or anyone is abstractly analyzing human thought from a neutral vantage point at which cognitive bias doesn't exist. — Noble Dust
Another way to put the same point is that the practically wise person is phenomenologically open to the unique situation, whereas the unique situation remains phenomenologically closed to the unwise person. It also seems important to practical wisdom that one is not only open to the unique situation, but that one acts 'appropriately'/'hits the mark' (I'm unsure of the right word) in their unique situation. — bloodninja
Bias blind spot: — Mayor of Simpleton
Well... not quite. [Etc, etc, etc...] — Mayor of Simpleton
I view the awareness of coginitve biases as a useful tool that can be applied to check things and one's self... the same as logic is a tool. — Mayor of Simpleton
Intuition is always or even often a good thing?
Perhaps I should keep my tools of coginitive bias in pandora's box? Heaven forbid that intuition might be exposed for what it really is and making one's wisdom seem a bit short sighted? — Mayor of Simpleton
It's also a fantasy to imagine that any of our efforts matter in grand scheme of things, other than each individual's ability to bring their own special brand of mediocrity to a tiny aspect of reality, but hey... I personally imagine Sisyphus to be happy if Sisyphus is under the illusion that Sisyphus can choose his own rocks. Try again fail again try to fail better? It's a hobby. — Mayor of Simpleton
What is intuition, then? — Noble Dust
Where for a minute did I say it was rule-following? — apokrisis
Is it wise to live by habit? Is it unwise to be clever? — Noble Dust
Your terms are clunky and don't reflect use — Noble Dust
I like that definition, although I can tell it’s slanted towards your feelings about intuition. — Noble Dust
I'm just bored by the concept of cognitive bias because everyone has it. So it's important to get to the point where we recognize that we have it, but from there, there's no reason to put it on a pedestal or use it as an intellectual weapon. When we do that, we undermine intuition; you have an intuition about wisdom; so do I. It's a fantasy to imagine that you or I or anyone is abstractly analyzing human thought from a neutral vantage point at which cognitive bias doesn't exist. — Noble Dust
Yeah I know; like I said, I can't imagine what's unwise about asking you questions about the propositions you espoused which you claim are wisdom. If I can't ask "why?" questions in response to your wisdom, then surely you aren't wise for setting up such a rule. — Noble Dust
I said there's wisdom to be learned from self-hatred; not that it's wise to hate oneself. — Noble Dust
So, it has nothing much to do with "silence" but rather more to do with learning how to talk to yourself kindly and authentically (with your own voice, that is). — Janus
I don't know what you mean here. — Noble Dust
That is one of the rationales behind mindfulness meditation. A large part of the benefit of that, is getting clear about what it is that’s driving you, instead of just being driven by it. And that’s from learning how to ‘see it as it is’ and not ‘how you want it to be’. — Wayfarer
Another way to put the same point is that the practically wise person is phenomenologically open to the unique situation, whereas the unique situation remains phenomenologically closed to the unwise person. — bloodninja
...the golden rule focuses us on the general thing of a rule of reciprocality in our social relations. And then - creatively, particularly - we can apply that general rule in ways that best befit any of life's highly variable situations.
This is a really good point that i did not explicitly state. A person can be incredibly intelligent about all kinds of things, and yet remain embedded in secondary (generalized) understanding, rather than being directly attentive to what is at hand.
I think it is also true that being intelligent in terms of generalized understanding can help you to "hit the mark", and is a necessary background to being intelligently attentive to what is at hand. — Janus
Is that what I said? — apokrisis
Huh? I’m just giving you the psychological explanation - which also happens to be the general Peircean metaphysical story as well.
Another way of talking about it is the distinction between fluid and crystallised intelligence. You can look it all up any time you want. — apokrisis
You're right and I've already alluded to this: it is not unwise to ask questions, the unwisdom consists in not actively assessing the answers against your own understandings of what you are asking about, or in not paying sufficient heed to your own understanding. — Janus
In a nutshell?
Do your best to abstain from bullshit and self-hatred, and from asking others what those are. — Janus
What this comes down to is that you cannot simply adopt another's wisdom, you can only transform it into a part of your own. — Janus
Appeal to authority much? — Noble Dust
Why is this good or wise? Because reason doesn't know what intuition means. But intuition means what reason doesn't know. And neither is "better" than the other. — Noble Dust
That seems at best a muddled copy of your initial post: — Noble Dust
So wisdom is...let me guess: intersubjective? Or was that five months ago? — Noble Dust
Empirical and factual knowledge may be intersubjectively determinable, but neither aesthetic or religious understanding, nor wisdom, are. — Janus
That's because you insist that the insight aspect of religious traditions is private, subjective or personal in nature. Whereas I say that in various domains of discourse, there are indeed ways of validating such insights, in fact that is one of the primary rationales of such traditions — Wayfarer
the standards and values at play in human life can be understood only in terms of sense experience, and consequently lose any intrinsic universal and unconditional validity founded either on the truth of human nature as accessible to human reason or on the eternal truth of divine Reason.
When it comes to Ethics, we have only relativized or subjectivized values, which deal with the patterns of conduct accepted by a social group in a certain place and at a certain moment, and which are data of observation for the psychologist, the anthropologist and the sociologist, but which are in themselves as impossible of rational justification and as extraneous to the field of truth and error as an emotional outburst or a national liking for beef, borscht or spaghetti. How could moral obligation derive from the sway of the idea -- the universal idea -- of the good over man's practical reason? It can derive only from psychological pressure created by habit, fear and social taboos.
There is no room, moreover, in the Empiricist view for the notion of bonum honestum, the good for the sake of good: it is replaced by the notion of the "good state of affairs", meaning an advantageous state of affairs. Utilitarianism -- that is, the holy empire of the useful, or of the means, with a chaste looking away from any end, or a naive looking for some means irrationally made into an end, -- utilitarianism is the ethics of Empiricism.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.