Philosophy Now Forum

Intuition plays a big role in both our regular lives
and within philosophy itself...

INUITION: The ability to understand something immediately,
without the need for conscious reasoning.....

Much of Kant's work revolves around intuition...a bottom
line argument given in Kant is basically this: we have no
physical evidence for god, but we have an intuition for the
existence of god...
so, because we have this intuition about god, god must
exist....

another bottom-line argument given within theology is this:

I have no evidence for god, I have no facts supporting the
existence of god, but I have an intuition that god exists based
on the existence of the bible, which god dictated to men...
but if man is so limited to the senses, the intellect, the ability
to gather knowledge, how do we get this information from god,
as in, how does god, a unlimited being, a spirit, give information
to us limited, physical beings.... and the answer is, intuition...

but we are left with a problem... the reliability of intuition...
how are we to know how reliable intuition is?
Women swear to the accuracy of their intuition...
but as we know, there is nothing in existence that is 100%
reliable...so at what point do we believe in the value of
intuition given it is only a percentage correct... for example,
if we give intuition a 50% rating of being correct, is that
good, bad or indifferent? something that is 50% correct isn't
much better than flipping a coin...do we consider intuition
reasonable right if its percentage rate is 60% or 70%?

Personally, I wouldn't bet the farm on intuition being only
60 or 70% correct... I have made "bets" on my intuition,
on which girl to date, to which job to take, to which
team or horse to bet on....there are a million examples
of our intuition and its success/failure....

if intuition were so accurate, why are so many women
violently killed after a date? Shouldn't their intuition about
men, have lead them to make different choices?

to my mind, intuition is nothing more than a bet about something
being right or wrong... which still leaves us the problem of
how do we receive god's messages, from a non-material, spirit
to us human beings, we are beings that are material, physical objects....
we are beings that have limited knowledge, understanding, intelligence,
capabilities, senses.....

It is Kant's argument that we have understanding of the universe
because we have some intuition about the universe...but if'
there is no such thing as intuition, then how can we have an
understanding of the universe?

we are limited beings, that is a fact.. the question becomes this,
because of our limitations, how can we have knowledge of the universe?

the only answer left is by reasoning.... and even in this ability,
we are limited...but what else is left? we must begin with evidence,
facts and then reason from that evidence, those facts into some
knowledge or understanding of the universe...

we cannot pretend that something as unreliable as intuition
is some sort of answer for how we are to gather information
about the universe...

so we have facts.. the earth is 93 million miles from the sun...
ok, then we must have some grounds to make this information
do something for us....the earth is 93 million miles from the sun,
and what does this mean to us? what does this information mean to us?

as philosophers, we need not only information/facts,
but we need to have that information bring us some new
knowledge or understanding of the universe...
So, is it from intuition that we go from facts/evidence to some
understanding of our place in the universe?

we get a fact/information, what next? how do we turn that information/facts
into something useful?....that allows us some understanding or ability
to make changes in our lives?

''it is not enough to understand the universe, we must be able to change it''

and how do we know which changes are the right changes and which
understanding is the right understanding?

Kropotkin

Now given how we cannot depend on intuition,
what is left? I submit that we are going about our making
decisions the wrong way.....

there is no possibility of us having all the knowledge, information
we need to make a decision... no matter how hard we try, we
cannot gather all the information we need to make a knowable decision...

if we try to place all the necessary knowledge into a set, we will still
be missing some aspect of that set.. we cannot, ever, gather
all the necessary information to have a complete set of knowledge...

this inability to gather all the necessary information means
every single decision we make is base on partial, incomplete information...

the other aspect that plays a role is our inability to understand
the role of uncertainty, chaos, randomness, chance in our lives...
not only do we have limited information, but that information
is quite often chaotic, random, based on chance....

the universe has two (at least two, there may be more sides
to this than we know, there might be 3 or 5 or 50 sides
to every single bit of information/knowledge we have)

the one side of the universe is the laws of physics and science...
we have, as making the rules of existence, being gravity,
evolution, thermodynamics... these laws are laws/rules that
govern existence... and we must play by these rules... we
are born human and we cannot ever become a dog, or a cow
or a tree... the laws of evolution are quite clear about this...
the rules are set... we cannot overcome these rules of
evolution, of gravity, of thermodynamics.. we have to play
the game as these rules demand the rules to be played...
we have not choice...

but built into these rules/laws are also chaos, randomness,
chance...the rules/laws of evolution is in some part determined
by chance/randomness... and the laws of gravity must also
be influenced by chance/randomness/chaos...as is the
laws of thermodynamics are also impacted by chance and chaos./...

the trick is to understand which parts of evolution is random in nature
and which parts follow the rules of evolution and the same goes true
for gravity and thermodynamics.. the trick to figuring out gravity
and thermodynamics is to work out what parts are random/chaotic
and what parts are not.....

we human beings are impacted in several different ways by
chance, randomness, chaos... in the rules of science we must
follow, are impacted by randomness and chance... thus the
very rules we must follow are also driven in part by randomness
and chance...

my own life has been impacted by chance, becoming deaf was
a random act, that no one could have predicted or foreseen...
an earthquake causes the deaths of thousands and that is
an act of randomness I am talking about....

by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I can be impacted
by the chaotic nature of the universe...or not... an earthquake
in Peru is random, and has very little or no impact on me at all...
whereas an earthquake here in the San Francisco Bay area
has a considerable impact on me...we cannot begin to count
the way our lives are random, rules by chance or ruled
by chaos..... driving to work and I may be hit by a tire that has come
off a car, that is completely random act... over which I have no control
over... Or the power go out on me because it is storming
outside... as it actually is right now... it is raining quite heavily right now...
acts I have no control over and is completely random....

so what we must do is completely rethink existence...
not so much as to the following of laws/rules of science
as much as rethinking that the most important aspect
of existence is the randomness and the nature of chance
and chaos has on our lives...

instead of seeking complete control over the universe
by engaging in seeking the rules/laws of science,
we work on accepting the real nature of the universe which
is its random, chaotic, full of chance nature....

let us accept the true nature of the universe by
accepting that we are as much impacted by the rules
of the universe, gravity, evolution, thermodynamics...
as we are impacted by the random, chaotic, chance
nature of the universe.....we need to accept both
the rules of the universe and the random nature
of the universe... that is the beginning of the true
understanding of what it means to be human...

that chance and randomness and chaos plays
as much of a role in our lives as do the rules of the universe,
evolution, gravity and thermodynamics...

Kropotkin

now what does this mean for philosophy?

the fact is that the goal of philosophers has been to
turn philosophy into a "science".. but if we are impacted
by chance and chaos and randomness as much as I
have suggested, then we cannot ever turn philosophy
into a science because of the random, chaotic nature
of our lives...

so, we walk away from science as being the goal or purpose
of philosophy, what is left? If we are no longer trying to turn
philosophy into a science, then what is left?

we might try this... if we use philosophy as a "way of life"
then we can accept the nature of the universe as being
random, chaotic, full of chance.... for we can incorporate
the universe into philosophy by accepting the true nature
of the universe.. it, the universe, being random, chaotic,
full of chance...

tomorrow I may die, completely by a random event..
and my own personal philosophy must take that random event,
events driven by chance and chaos, into account....

we human beings are driven by working out events into
philosophies of unity, of total acts that are but one thing,
think of Spinoza's universe.. that has but one substance,
and that substance is god... a philosophy that tries to identify
everything into a system, Kant or Hegel for example,
are also failures because they do not take into account
the random, chaotic nature of the universe...

the philosophy of the future must take into account the
chaotic and random nature of the universe...we are as much
a part of the rules and laws of the universe as we are impacted
by the chaos and chance that exists within the universe...

and until philosophy engages with this randomness and chaos,
it will never be able to be even close to being a picture
of our selves or our universe...

take into account the random nature of the universe or
be really wrong about what it means to be human....
and any thought as to the goal/meaning of human beings
without any consideration of the random nature of the universe,
means our thinking about our goals/purpose of life will be wrong....

Kropotkin

human beings seek unity, cohesion, being one with the universe,
but given the random nature of the universe, I don't see how
seeking a unity or cohesion of us into the universe is going to work....

the modern era is the first time in human history that, as it been said,

"the modern era is the first time that man has become problematic to himself."

and why have we become ''problematic to ourselves" it has been suggested
that we have lost the cohesion and unity that prior states/societies/
civilizations have had....we have lost the unity of the statement
that "there is a god" an objective viewpoint, (perhaps) to
a subjective viewpoint, ''I have a god'' or not.....

what values do we hold in common in this modern day and age?
very few... values and beliefs are like assholes, everyone got one...
and which value and belief is the "true" value/belief?
who knows.. I certainly don't know.... so we fight over
values and beliefs that have no universal agreement...
we individually hold our values given there doesn't seem
to be any type of universal value we can agree to....

and in our own individual seeking, we assume that others
must be wrong because we think that our own personal values/
beliefs must be the correct one... this is ego talking... that my
own personal values are the correct one because I hold that value...
and I am always right.... again, ego talking.... the loss of
universal values/beliefs has forced us to hold onto our own
personal values/belief with a greater tenacity then we might
otherwise have held them.... I hold onto my own personal values
with a great deal of tightness because I can't see my way to
any sort of universal value...

I once described beliefs like a coat.... in good times,
we don't hold our coat very tight, in moderate times,
we might button up our coat, but not very tight,
and in bad times, we hang onto our coats with our lives...
beliefs are exactly the same way...in good times,
we hold our beliefs/values loosely.. in moderate times,
we hold our beliefs/values quite a bit more tightly,
and in bad times, we hang onto our values/beliefs with our lives....

and this explains why the conservatives are holding onto their
values/beliefs with a death grip.... they are as lost as our society/
state is and their response is to hang onto their values with everything
they got.... there is not possibility of a reevaluation of values because
even in good times, that is quite dangerous to one's ego....

The fact is that we hold our values/beliefs within the grip
of our ego.... we hold onto to our values/beliefs with vigor
because if those values/beliefs are wrong, we are going to
be damaged in our soul, within our ego... so we hold onto
our values/beliefs tightly, as not to damage our ego...

is that really the way we should hold onto our values/beliefs,
as to not damage our ego?

Kropotkin

First off, good post. I can see the main points of the topic being highlighted in specific paragraphs and critical questions. Again, kudos to your superb analytical skills.

Secondly, the way I see it, what needs to be done is already apparent in the OP itself: an idea, a belief, a fact, need I say more?

Thirdly, intuition's, going out on a limb here, not just about knowledge. What else could it be about? That's an interesting line of inquiry in me humble opinion.

Look, if Peter Kropotkin isn't an AI chatbot, I'll eat my hat. And my socks.

The universe is "random" in nature? In what science or philosophy textbook (religious or otherwise) will you find an argument to support that statement?

"the modern era is the first time that man has become problematic to himself." - if that's true, we obviously have to write off Plato and Socrates. It would also come as news to the ancient Egyptians; cf. Pharaoh Akhenaton: "The wise man doubts often, and his views can be changed; the fool is constant in his opinions, and doubts nothing, because he knows everything, except his own ignorance".

alan1000 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 2:21 pm Look, if Peter Kropotkin isn't an AI chatbot, I'll eat my hat. And my socks.

The universe is "random" in nature? In what science or philosophy textbook (religious or otherwise) will you find an argument to support that statement?

"the modern era is the first time that man has become problematic to himself." - if that's true, we obviously have to write off Plato and Socrates. It would also come as news to the ancient Egyptians; cf. Pharaoh Akhenaton: "The wise man doubts often, and his views can be changed; the fool is constant in his opinions, and doubts nothing, because he knows everything, except his own ignorance".

K: might I suggest eating your hat and socks with hot sauce..
Personally, I prefer Franks hot sauce...with a couple of habaneros...
but whatever floats your boat...

as far as ''man becoming problematic to himself"

I believe it was Gabriel Marcel who said that...
and the point isn't about the individual person may or
may not be thinking about being problematic...
no, what Marcel, if he even said that, was
that within an overall social context we have
become problematic to ourselves...
we, as a society, as a state has become problematic to ourselves...
we have individuals who have believed so, but that wasn't
an overall society issue that it is today....

this is the first time as a society, that we have become problematic
to ourselves....ask yourself, what does it mean to be human?
what is our collective answer to this eternal question?
and we have no answer....for the first time in human history....
we have no sense of our collective self as being a collective self...

Kropotkin

perhaps part of the reason we have "problematic" to ourself
is because for the first time ever, we have to think about
ourselves and our place in the universe in terms of randomness,
chaos and chance....the bottom line belief in philosophy has
been the "principle of sufficient reason" that everything must
have a reason, cause or ground... but if the universe
is as I have said, being random, or chaotic or about chance,
then do we even have the PSR? if events, people or actions
are impacted by or influenced by randomness, chance or
chaos, then the PSR, as a principle, is in trouble...
much of philosophy becomes doubtful...

life as well as science becomes a clash between the laws
of physics, entropy and thermodynamics, laws/rules that
are pretty much solid in terms of their impact on people,
events and actions...but if, if we have, even as a percentage,
say 25% of life/events/actions impacted by chance, randomness
or chaos, then we are left with a substantial problem...

If getting from point A to point B become problematic..
we may make it, we may not make it, everything in life
become tricky, uncertain, questionable... the search in philosophy
has been the search for certainty, first principles, the absolute...
but we cannot set out on a journey in seeking out certainty or
the first principles and expect to make it because of the
random nature of the universe... all actions become a question
of fate, chance and randomness..... maybe, maybe not...

in our daily lives, we admit to this, in our saying that
life is not a given, here today, gone tomorrow...
saying like this certainly suggests that one some level,
we understand the random nature of the universe...

if we have no certainty, no first principles, then life
and ourselves do become "problematic" to us...

what can we depend on? what can we take for certain?
what journey can we take that isn't going to fall apart
due to the random nature of the universe?

and so, we must include into our philosophies, this
tentative nature of the universe.. we must include
as part of philosophy, this idea that the universe/nature
is random, chaotic and full of chance... but recall that
chance can mean negative possibilities but it can also mean
positive possibilities... by chance, we can win the lottery
as well as be attacked by a dog or a leopard...
chance/chaos plays no favorites or makes bargains with anyone...
it simple is.... and we have to learn to deal with that.....in
our philosophy....

Kropotkin

We could reason thus:

All Americans are so, sooo cool!

Donald Trump, not cool!

Donald Trump ain't American ... ya dumbo!

intuition...
may become more through thought and execution within will.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 4:56 pm Intuition plays a big role in both our regular lives
and within philosophy itself...

INUITION: The ability to understand something immediately,
without the need for conscious reasoning.....

Much of Kant's work revolves around intuition...a bottom
line argument given in Kant is basically this: we have no
physical evidence for god, but we have an intuition for the
existence of god...
so, because we have this intuition about god, god must
exist....

.............

Kropotkin

Nah you got it wrong with the above.

Kant never claimed humans can ever have 'intuition' [as defined] for a god.

According to Kant, human intuition is sensible:

• Our Nature is so constituted that our Intuition can never be other than Sensible; that is, it contains only the Mode in which we are affected by Objects.
  It is, therefore, just as necessary to make our Concepts Sensible, that is, to add the Object to them in Intuition,
  as to make our Intuitions Intelligible, that is, to bring them under Concepts.
  Critique of Pure Reason A51, B75

God, Soul are non-sensible objects.
Thus is it impossible for humans to have sensible intuition of God.

However, Kant agreed all humans can 'think' of anything, thus of a God which is non-sensible and illusory.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 6:38 am God, Soul are non-sensible objects.
Thus is it impossible for humans to have sensible intuition of God.

VA is an atheist so presumably he means that people posit that God is not sensible. But this is false.
Even deities that are ALSO transcendant, like the Abrahamic God, become sensible at various times - this can be through miracles, burning bushes, voices, the felt presence of God, Mary, Jesus, Angels coming down and smiting or communicating and this is reflected in the way theists talk about experiencing God.

And of course other religions have even more sensory interactions with deities.

Further VA adds the adjective 'sensible'. This may or may not be correct in Kant's views, but it is not the original assertion about intuition.

In any case....from one of the religions that emphasize transcendance, there is still a great deal of sensory interaction....

Exod 24:10 and they saw the God of Israel: under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity.

Deut 4:12 YHWH spoke to you out of the fire: the voice of words you heard but you did not see a form.”

4:36 From the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on earth He let you see His great fire; and from amidst that fire you heard His words.

Deut 5:20 When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, you came up to me, all your tribal heads and elders, 5:21 and said, “YHWH our God has just shown us His majestic Presence, and we have heard His voice out of the fire. We have seen this day that man may live though God has spoken to him.

Deut 5:24 You go closer and hear all that YHWH our God says, and then you tell us everything that the LORD our God tells you, and we will hear and do it.”

The Lord Speaks
38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

And he speaks to Abraham

And so on.....