So one can still entertain the notion that there is a genuine revelation at in this tradition, without being obliged to accept it on its terms. — Wayfarer
Where do you draw the line, for example? — Janus
there are "levels of being" such that the more real is also the more valuable; these levels appear in both the "external" and the "internal" worlds, "higher" levels of reality without corresponding to "deeper" levels of reality within. On the very lowest level is the material/physical world, which depends for its existence on the higher levels. On the very highest/deepest level is the Infinite or Absolute.
Basically this volume is an attempt to recover this view of reality from materialism, scientism, and "postmodernism." It does not attempt to adjudicate among religions (or philosophies), it does not spell out any of the important differences between world faiths, and it is not intended to substitute a "new" religion for the specific faiths which already exist.
Nor should any such project be expected from a work that expressly focuses on what religions have in common. Far from showing that all religions are somehow "the same," Smith in fact shows that religions have a "common" core only at a sufficiently general level. What he shows, therefore, is not that there is really just one religion, but that the various religions of the world are actually agreeing _and_ disagreeing about something real, something about which there is an objective matter of fact, on the fundamentals of which most religions tend to concur while differing in numerous points of detail (including practice).
Of course any two religions therefore have much more in common than any single religion has with "materialism". In fact one way to state the "common core" of the world's religions is simply to say that they agree about the falsehood of "materialism."
There can be no knowledge in the kind of sense that we have with everyday facts, science and mathematics. — Janus
If the Buddha believed that he remembered 5000 of his past lives, he could have no way of knowing that those memories were genuine" — Janus
What he shows, therefore, is not that there is really just one religion, but that the various religions of the world are actually agreeing _and_ disagreeing about something real, something about which there is an objective matter of fact, on the fundamentals of which most religions tend to concur while differing in numerous points of detail (including practice).
With what matters to you, what you think is really important. — Wayfarer
It's more that we have no way of assessing such a claim.
I agree that there are many elements in traditions that seem fantastic or mythological. But there is no absolute objective yardstick to measure such claims against. You're not going to validate or invalidate such claims against anything known to peer-reviewed science. — Wayfarer
Intuition yields a different kind of knowledge (knowledge by feeling, by familiarity) than rational, empirical knowledge. — Janus
I can't really agree with the conclusion, as with intuition that there is a potential (and probable) set of mistakes and false assumptions waiting to happen that lead to a further continuation of mistakes and false assumptions that intuition can subsequently deny that the mistakes and false assumptions are to it's credit by lack of reasoning as there no point in reasoning why intuition might have flaws. — Mayor of Simpleton
Indeed intuition can mean what one cannot know by reasoning, but how is that any differenct than forcing an answer to a question prematurely (a hasty generalization) for the sake of having an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton
OK... perhaps intution means this well with it's intentions, but is it really prudent to force an answer for the sake of having an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton
Is there (in your notion) some sort of (metaphysical) the truth that is intrinsic to the universe or our experience of the universe? — Mayor of Simpleton
btw... I do need to make clear that this is not a game or a competition. I view this as an exchange of ideas. There are no trophies or medals to win in such a dialog. If you do view this as a game or competition then let me know and I'll end this now. — Mayor of Simpleton
... intuition, on the other hand, has the benefit of knowing the conclusion without taking exhaustive steps that need to be perfect; Intuition has the potential to avoid the mistakes in reasoning which lead to badly reasoned conclusions. — Noble Dust
You misunderstand intuition if you think it means forcing an answer. That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of what I've been trying to express. — Noble Dust
Is there (in your notion) some sort of (metaphysical) the truth that is intrinsic to the universe or our experience of the universe?
— Mayor of Simpleton
My intuition says "yes"; my reason says "???" — Noble Dust
I just want to point out that I have not claimed that intuition is necessarily a good guide when it comes to empirical, scientific or even everyday knowledge. I think your definition and understanding of intuition is too narrowly focussed. — Janus
When it comes to matters that fall outside the everyday, empirical or scientific, apart from the fact that logical consistency and coherency are obviously also often important, personal feeling, intuition and experience become paramount. Think of love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion in this connection. — Janus
What is wisdom? — Noble Dust
I wasn't directing the post at you personally. — Mayor of Simpleton
My only problem here is that everything you have mentioned (love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion) do indeed have a very logical consistancy and coherency if one chooses to look a bit closer. — Mayor of Simpleton
Indeed intuition and experience (as if experience is in the sole domain of intuitive thought and plays no role in empirical or scientific review?) become paramount, but as I said before they are a beginning of reasoning and if left alone with no further progression as both the beginning and end in and of itself... well, as I said before... there are just far too many "stones unturned"; thus the truth of the certainty is founded upon a reluctance to review. — Mayor of Simpleton
In any event, I still cannot help but believe that intuition alone is hasty.
Bad reasoning is still a form of "exhaustive steps" in reasoning; thus the errors can be exposed and the reasoning refined. Without the "work" of these steps how is a lack of steps really better other than it having the ability to speed up a process, by skipping steps? — Mayor of Simpleton
I feel no need to be charitable here. I feel more a need to be accurate as to the nature of intuition no matter how brutal it might appear. — Mayor of Simpleton
Basically that's where I landed in my investigation and I'm still curious I what direction and where the next bits of info will lead me. — Mayor of Simpleton
Wisdom moves from the past into the future. But the future is not like the past except in the mundane sense of things always falling to Earth (gravity). What I mean is wisdom gets outdated so fast that it becomes pointless to acquire it. — TheMadFool
Yes, well my only problem is that you seem to think that the fact there might be appropriate logics in love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion has any bearing on what I have been arguing. Perhaps you could choose some of my actual statements and show how it would be relevant. — Janus
Prior to the advent of an explicitly understood scientific method, intuition indeed reigned (you only have to look at Aristotle's physics or Chinese medicine) — Janus
In the domains of religion and the arts, intuition still reigns. People's understanding of poems, paintings, music, mystical writings and religious allegories is still mostly an intuitive process. — Janus
What do you think theology consists in, for example? There is plenty of logic in that discipline. — Janus
How would you know that one thing is entailed by another if not be intuition? — Janus
I never tried to argue that intuition should be used "alone", or that it was better; I've already stressed that. Or, if something I said led you to believe that I think that about intuition, then I didn't word it right. The whole point I was making is that both intuition and reason are valuable. I'm making that argument because you don't seem to consider intuition valuable — Noble Dust
I said your interpretation of intuition as "forcing an answer" was uncharitable, because it's inaccurate. Maybe uncharitable isn't the right word; it was just an inaccurate interpretation of what I mean by intuition; it seems like you haven't given much consideration to what I'm saying intuition is, and what it's function is within the larger scheme of thinking. Or maybe I just haven't given a good enough picture of what I think about that. — Noble Dust
I'm more interested in Charles Ives than Carl Sagan, so maybe that's where we have an issue here? Indeed, music, especially the music of someone like Ives, is pretty much the supreme fusion of reason and intuition — Noble Dust
Can you make an argument for the idea that wisdom moves from the past into the future? To say that wisdom gets outdated fast is to basically say that wisdom doesn't exist, which is fine if you want to make that argument. Otherwise though, I can't see how that idea makes any sense; it's essentially a non sequitur. — Noble Dust
thus intuition is only a beginning and not an end. — Mayor of Simpleton
Sure it might not seem so inspired or magical, but I'm more concerned with outcomes than appearance. — Mayor of Simpleton
This is all fine and good, but how exactly is intuition not a conclusion? — Mayor of Simpleton
Also, since it is intuition and not a process of critical reasoning, how is this not a conclusion founded upon a very small sample size of information; thus a hasty (aka forced) answer? — Mayor of Simpleton
I'm getting a little frustrated here. Nowhere did I say intuition was an end. You seem to read into my argument a lot. So do you consider reasoning a beginning, an end, or what? — Noble Dust
Again, "inspired or magical" is a pretty uncharitable response here, simply based on the tone. — Noble Dust
Do you really think that that's why I'm placing importance on intuition? — Noble Dust
Do you think that's why Janus is making an argument in regards to intuition? — Noble Dust
You seem to have a charicature in your mind, probably based on those days in which you placed importance on intuition, of what people who place value on intuition are like. And furthermore, a feeling of "inspiration" (not sure what "magical" means) is natural when the intuition is used. I openly take that feeling for what it is and listen to it; I don't disparage it. — Noble Dust
Ugh...again, where did I say intuition is a conclusion? What does that even mean? It doesn't even make grammatical sense. — Noble Dust
Intuition deals with the immanently personal; sample size isn't important. You're using the rules of the game of reason to try to eliminate intuition (which doesn't play by reason's rules in the first place), from whatever game it is you're playing here — Noble Dust
Essentially, intuition can never have a place in that game if the rules of intuition aren't allowed into the ring. — Noble Dust
If intuition has to play by reason's rules, then intuition is indeed worthless, which is basically what you're trying to set up here. But again, that's an uncharitable charicature of what intuition is, and it reveals your own lack of intuition. — Noble Dust
You're only addressing the role of intuition vis a vis empirical matters, so since I already more or less agree, I can't find much to respond to. — Janus
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.