In my last post ("Philosophy 2 ...") I ended with: It's good to be able to say "I don't know" or "I don't care".
Supposing one couldn't say those things. What then?
Well, not being able to say "I don't know", one might be forever having to answer every question, either by doing a lot of good research, or by lying, or by incompetently giving some poor answers to some questions. One could opt for saying nothing at all, which is antisocial.
While not being able to say "I don't care", one is likely to be often accosted by people who want involvement -- like telemarketers for charities. One could say to them, "Sorry, I cannot help" which would often be a lie. One could just say "No"without giving an excuse, but that's about the same as saying "I don't care" -- you would at least be thinking to yourself, "I don't care about this, compared with other things".
I do love to know some things -- I just don't want to do it every time somebody else wants me to, and I don't want to have to make excuses to them. And there are going to be lots of things I won't be able to figure out.
Whereas in the posts Philosophy 1 and Philosophy 2, I was saying that in addition to the respected ways of knowing by "observing" and "reasoning" there is a third, undefined way that I call intuition, now in Philosophy 3 I say that in addition to knowing there is not knowing, and in addition to caring there is not caring, and, depending on circumstances, all these may be options.
So, sometimes I care and want to know, and sometimes I don't. During the typical middle class life such as mine, the option of not caring or not pursuing a particular truth is as important as being able to know. So, for the well-rounded individual, there are both philosophy and unphilosophy, and either one might occasionally be better than the other, in social situations, such as when one is asked questions, or in private, such as when one is just sitting still, alone in a room having quiet time.
I hope that when I'm interested in a topic (such as to know a truth and to reason what is a better way to do things) others will be interested enough to get involved too. But generally it's good for them to have a choice in which things they do or don't want to get involved in. I might know it's really important that they be involved in a topic, such as climate change, but if they are to have meaningful existence as individuals, they should have options and choose for themselves which things they want to get involved in.
jrl20140101_935pm
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Philosophy 2, on Jan. 1, 2014
My last post ("Philosophy 1, on Dec. 31, 2013") ended as follows:
[begin quote]
7. Observation and reasoning are widely respected concepts. I think I first heard about them in late grade school. I would add a third way, which is less generally respected: intuition. I mean intuition in a broad sense, to mean almost anything which isn't strictly reason nor observation.
8. Intuition could be evaluated according to its consistency and according to how it feels emotionally -- or simply whether one likes a particular intuition or not.
9. So, for me, there are at least 3 ways to know things: observation, reasoning, and intuition.
[ end quote]
Now I'll explore some more about "intuition".
I observe, I reason, and I intuit.
If I wanted to evaluate a mathematical proof, I'd use mostly reason.
If I wanted to grow up and survive in this kind of world that I'm in, I'd use mostly observation and imitation, to grow up and survive.
If I wanted to know whether some proposition is objectively true, I would want to use observation and reason. I'd prefer observation. But sometimes the thing(s) to be observed is too far away such that I can't observe it, and then I'd resort to reason. But I might seek witnesses who have observed the thing(s) and then I'd apply a little reasoning.
I read a little about Aristotle. My thoughts about him are that he preferred reasoning over observation and that he was wrong about some things.
For many propositions, for the question: "Is it true?" the appropriate answer will be "I don't know."
I mentioned math proofs, growing up, and surviving. In my life, mathematical proofs haven't been very interesting, compared with, say, eating, or the opposite sex, or taking a walk, of sleeping. In my life, I've already grown up, and survived well enough, and live in good circumstances, such that most of the time I don't need to focus on survival. So, as most of the time I'm not particularly interested in math proofs, growing up, nor survival, what is the relevance for me of:
(a) observation, or
(b) reasoning
?
Shall I just love knowledge for its own sake, or love "winning"? Observation and reasoning would be good for these things.
Intuition -- by which I mean ways of thinking and knowing which aren't strictly observation nor reasoning -- is a way to decide what I _like_ or what I _want_.
A life of observing and reasoning, without intuition, would be a dry existence. It might have some rational purpose, and it might have physiological pleasures, but it would lack love and inspiration.
I conclude that all three are needed: observation, reasoning, and intuition. Intuition is what guides us to ponder some things rather than others, above and beyond whatever we need for survival or mathematical proofs.
There are degrees of comfort. One might advance in them by means of observation and reasoning, without much intuition. However, for a middle-class person such as myself, to find love, inspiration, or meaning, I would probably start with both observation and intuition, and it's primarily intuition which leads me to pursue one path over another.
"Knowing" may be good, but intuition tells me what sort of thing is worth knowing and what sort of thing to ignore.
I suppose that, in a way, for my purposes intuition is the king because it directs which way to observe and which thing to reason about. But really it takes all three together to get satisfaction, and it takes all three together to know well that which is worthwhile: the three ways of knowing are: observation, reasoning, and intuition -- where I haven't really defined what intuition is, except that it's something different from the other two.
Also, it's very good to be able to say "I don't know" or "I don't care".
-jrl20140101
[begin quote]
7. Observation and reasoning are widely respected concepts. I think I first heard about them in late grade school. I would add a third way, which is less generally respected: intuition. I mean intuition in a broad sense, to mean almost anything which isn't strictly reason nor observation.
8. Intuition could be evaluated according to its consistency and according to how it feels emotionally -- or simply whether one likes a particular intuition or not.
9. So, for me, there are at least 3 ways to know things: observation, reasoning, and intuition.
[ end quote]
Now I'll explore some more about "intuition".
I observe, I reason, and I intuit.
If I wanted to evaluate a mathematical proof, I'd use mostly reason.
If I wanted to grow up and survive in this kind of world that I'm in, I'd use mostly observation and imitation, to grow up and survive.
If I wanted to know whether some proposition is objectively true, I would want to use observation and reason. I'd prefer observation. But sometimes the thing(s) to be observed is too far away such that I can't observe it, and then I'd resort to reason. But I might seek witnesses who have observed the thing(s) and then I'd apply a little reasoning.
I read a little about Aristotle. My thoughts about him are that he preferred reasoning over observation and that he was wrong about some things.
For many propositions, for the question: "Is it true?" the appropriate answer will be "I don't know."
I mentioned math proofs, growing up, and surviving. In my life, mathematical proofs haven't been very interesting, compared with, say, eating, or the opposite sex, or taking a walk, of sleeping. In my life, I've already grown up, and survived well enough, and live in good circumstances, such that most of the time I don't need to focus on survival. So, as most of the time I'm not particularly interested in math proofs, growing up, nor survival, what is the relevance for me of:
(a) observation, or
(b) reasoning
?
Shall I just love knowledge for its own sake, or love "winning"? Observation and reasoning would be good for these things.
Intuition -- by which I mean ways of thinking and knowing which aren't strictly observation nor reasoning -- is a way to decide what I _like_ or what I _want_.
A life of observing and reasoning, without intuition, would be a dry existence. It might have some rational purpose, and it might have physiological pleasures, but it would lack love and inspiration.
I conclude that all three are needed: observation, reasoning, and intuition. Intuition is what guides us to ponder some things rather than others, above and beyond whatever we need for survival or mathematical proofs.
There are degrees of comfort. One might advance in them by means of observation and reasoning, without much intuition. However, for a middle-class person such as myself, to find love, inspiration, or meaning, I would probably start with both observation and intuition, and it's primarily intuition which leads me to pursue one path over another.
"Knowing" may be good, but intuition tells me what sort of thing is worth knowing and what sort of thing to ignore.
I suppose that, in a way, for my purposes intuition is the king because it directs which way to observe and which thing to reason about. But really it takes all three together to get satisfaction, and it takes all three together to know well that which is worthwhile: the three ways of knowing are: observation, reasoning, and intuition -- where I haven't really defined what intuition is, except that it's something different from the other two.
Also, it's very good to be able to say "I don't know" or "I don't care".
-jrl20140101
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)