Male Sexuality

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderator: Fist and Faith

User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

Cambo wrote:Yeah that's something the philosophers get right, in principle anyway. I just find amusing how they try to escape from intuition as a basis of reasoning and usually fail. Just accept that intuition is a valid part of how we think and move on.
I don't think they try to escape from intuition, but intuition has to be justified. For example, if you're sitting under a tree and see an apple fall and have the intuition "Aha! That's caused by gravity!" That's all well and good, but it needs to be justified... in this case through the creation of calculus and repeated experimentation.
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10623
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time
Been thanked: 3 times

Post by Vraith »

Orlion wrote:
Cambo wrote:Yeah that's something the philosophers get right, in principle anyway. I just find amusing how they try to escape from intuition as a basis of reasoning and usually fail. Just accept that intuition is a valid part of how we think and move on.
I don't think they try to escape from intuition, but intuition has to be justified. For example, if you're sitting under a tree and see an apple fall and have the intuition "Aha! That's caused by gravity!" That's all well and good, but it needs to be justified... in this case through the creation of calculus and repeated experimentation.
Good point. The vast majority of our advances/discoveries/insights work like that. Jump from rock to rock to cross the stream the first time...then build the bridge behind.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Post by Avatar »

Cambo wrote:Just accept that intuition is a valid part of how we think and move on.
Intuition is a valid part of how we think, but it's not evidence. I tend to trust my intuition...my sense that something is "just wrong." But my feeling is not proof that it is wrong. And the simple fact is that my "feeling" that it's wrong does not actually make it wrong.

The problem arises when people make that assumption...just because I think it's wrong, (or because my church or political party does) nobody should be doing it. And we should stop them.

--A
User avatar
Cambo
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2022
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by Cambo »

I agree Av, and when I say that intuition should be accepted as a valid part of how we think, I don't mean to imply we should throw rationality or logic out the window.

It's definitely a problem when people seek to impose their intuitive understandings upon others. This is one of the most common accusations leveled against me when I debate my beliefs with atheists. While my beliefs in particular do not lead me to wish to impose harm or coercion upon other people, they say, the fact that I hold and defend my beliefs legitimises people who do. My mode of thought, they argue, differs from theirs only in content, while it is the entire model of faith-based reasoning which lies at the root of the problem.

Obviously I disagree, and it comes back around to our discussion on relative and absolute truths. I would describe myself as a relativist in secular matters. Coupled with the belief that all matters involving interactions with people are secular, there's simply no way I could justify the desire to make anyone think as I do. That's an entirely different midset, from, say, the fundamentalist.
^"Amusing, worth talking to, completely insane...pick your favourite." - Avatar

https://variousglimpses.wordpress.com
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”