There's more to it than that - should we depend less on introspection than on ratiocination? — T Clark
So overall I think introspection is valuable, but I am skeptical that "rationality" and introspection can really be two separate categories when armchair philosophizing. When building a bridge, yeah of course they are different, but when pondering philosophical questions, that becomes much less clear. — rlclauer
I do not think there is a relationship between knowledge being important and engineering as an occupation. I think engineering has financial incentives, but knowledge is acquired through many different occupations, none of them being superior to the other, as can be seen in the raging debates between philosophers and physicists. — rlclauer
I honestly respect a philosophical view built from within and on ones own than the regurgitation of historical philosophy if I had to choose, although a mix of both is ideal. — DingoJones
should we depend less on introspection than on ratiocination? Love that word. Means, more or less, rational thinking. If so, how do they compare in terms of their credibility? — T Clark
I include feelings, values, impressions, and personal experience - both internal and external - in my arguments. — T Clark
I don't understand because rationality is mandatory and not an option you can deny. I read somewhere that to be irrational is to fail or, worse, die a premature death — TheMadFool
In other words introspection has to be done rationally. Otherwise you'd be schizophrenic, right? — TheMadFool
I understand because you read Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching is, in my humble opinion, a different type of philosophy. It's replete with what are normally considered fatal errors in philosophy - vagueness, paradoxes, etc. — TheMadFool
You probably mean that you think for yourself and use external material/sources simply as a good place to start an investigation. That's wonderful but how do you deal with frustration? I mean some philosophical ideas are notoriously difficult. Wouldn't it be illogical to go into the wilderness without a guide/friend who knows the trails? — TheMadFool
Knowing things like intelligence, ambition, laziness, focus, emotion and the list goes on without introspection might be just an exercise in theory, I don't believe you can really know them without introspection. Rationality, on the other hand, does not only not always yield results and it can lead one astray. — Judaka
I think introspection should be a large component of any philosopher's understanding of the world. Philosophers who fail to utilise their understanding of themselves and others and rely on rationality instead fail and end up in their own little world. — Judaka
Just gonna start by being fussy and say that introspection is not a type of knowledge and change the question to: does introspection gather information that can be used to form knowledge?Is introspection a valid type of knowledge
But is introspection a kind of knowledge at all, or if it be a kind of knowledge is it a valid one? I don't think that I'd agree that introspection is a kind of knowledge, but rather is way of thinking. We look into ourselves, and try and identify -- make into words -- different parts of our mind. This is the belief that is based on a gut feeling. This is the belief that is based on an observation. The terms "gut feeling" and "observation" are products of a way of thinking about our beliefs and classifying them -- the introspective way. — Moliere
Good point. I don't really think I'd say introspection is a way of thinking, but maybe I should have said that it is a good way of gaining knowledge. — T Clark
Anyway, I don't understand this non-rational stuff you're talking about.
The way I make sense of non-rational is that it doesn't involve thinking of any kind at all, not even irrational thinking. — TheMadFool
Now that makes sense to me. We could possibly divide all knowledge into two - internal (self) and external (physical world). Introspection is an inquiry into the former. — TheMadFool
No.Is introspection a valid type of knowledge — T Clark
There's more to it than that - should we depend less on introspection than on ratiocination? — T Clark
If so, how do they compare in terms of their credibility? — T Clark
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
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.If so, how do they compare in terms of their credibility? — T Clark
Sorry, but I’m old.....with all that implies......so I have to ask: has there come into vogue a school of Western philosophy that holds the act of introspection to be categorically distinct from the act of reason? — Mww
I can't see how they can be categorically distinct. That's my take.Sorry, but I’m old.....with all that implies......so I have to ask: has there come into vogue a school of Western philosophy that holds the act of introspection to be categorically distinct from the act of reason? — Mww
You can't really reason without examining experience and memories of experience and your own reactions to the parts of your reasoning. How do you know you saw a cat run across the road? Or better put, what makes you think you did?How is reason (the construction of an argument) related to these types of reflection (examinations of experience)? — Galuchat
Does reflection necessarily lead to reasoning?You can't really reason without examining experience and memories of experience and your own reactions to the parts of your reasoning. — Coben
I was working with introspection rather than reflection. And no, it doesn't necessarily, but it is necessary for reasoning. There is overlap between these processes. They are not completely distinct. One can blend them. I have argued above that one cannot reason without introspecting. So I think that introspection is a part of reasoning. It is not the part we tend to focus on or think of, but it is in there.Does reflection necessarily lead to reasoning? — Galuchat
I asked you one question in answer to one of yours, here (in case you forgot). As far as "learning anything", I guess it's true what they say about old dogs. So we are done for now.Thing is, about being old and all....I already have answers to both those questions. But it seems my answers aren’t in accord with current thinking. So because I got two questions rather than an answer to my one, I haven’t learned anything. — Mww
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.