Trusting in intuition is what makes people idiots. — Partinobodycular
Sure, no problem. First, you have to understand intuition. Rich described playing the piano or drawing as examples of things that are intuitive, but such intuitive behavior is based upon learned skills. If I ask an untrained child to draw a picture, or play the piano, their intuitive capabilities will most assuredly be limited. The child may be able to play notes on the piano that aren't completely displeasing, or draw a stick figure that resembles a person, but these skills are almost certainly attributable to previous exposure to sounds that they found pleasant, or coloring in a coloring book. Intuition is an offshoot of a learned skill.Could you elaborate that? — Ergo sum
[...] their intuitive capabilities will most assuredly be limited — Partinobodycular
[...] but these skills are almost certainly attributable to previous exposure to sounds that they found pleasant, or coloring in a coloring book. Intuition is an offshoot of a learned skill. — Partinobodycular
Intuition is a thought, an insight. It can't be good or be bad, it is what it is.In such instances intuition can be a good thing — Partinobodycular
but the point where intuition leads to idiocy is when people apply intuition to beliefs. — Partinobodycular
The point is, that trusting in intuition without questioning it's validity, or recognizing its source, is what leads to idiocy — Partinobodycular
Though, I think cogito ergo sum falls short, as it is not so much that we think that makes us a subject, rather it is that we are aware we think that makes us subjects. — AcesHigh
When one questions intuition, he's questioning it with his reason: at this point, the intuition was already gone and he's being rational. By recognizing something, assessing, you're using reason, the kind of thought defined by "Cogito, ergo sum". — Ergo sum
Using reason is part of the process of living, but should not be all of it. — Ergo sum
I wonder whether Descartes ever read Buddhist philosophy, specifically the part where it talks about anatta (no-self). The self, as per Buddhists, is an illusion. Therefore, Descartes argument is invalid: — Agent Smith
But how to feel reality without using rationality? My mind tells me the truth, but this truth is abstract because the mind also is. How reason explains the spirit? It denies it since it is not physical. Denying our spirit is the same as denying our intuition. — Ergo sum
One of these sensations is called reason - when I suppose my reality is true because I'm feeling it with my mind. — Ergo sum
I wonder whether Descartes ever read Buddhist philosophy, specifically the part where it talks about anatta (no-self). The self, as per Buddhists, is an illusion. Therefore, Descartes' argument is invalid: — Agent Smith
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.